the snap general election thread

CKhalvashi

kabayiri wrote: »

Nobody I know cares about Eurovision anymore.

It was a novelty perhaps in different times, but today we have so many talent shows. It's a crowded space.

Even something like Britains Got Talent attracts contestants from around Europe / the World. It also attracted 9 million viewers compared to Eurovision 6 million.

Eurovision should move to a pay channel.

The fact that 'noone cares' isn't a good reason to excuse racism from the UK to Ireland, or any country to any other country for that matter.

Whilst nothing to do with the general election (while the incident quoted in the article to an extent is, at least on a local level), Eurovision is a bit of fun, and a serious chance for a country to show what it has to tourists/potential tourists. I can only imagine with Ukraine's current situation it's immensely grateful of 20000 tourists descending on the country for a few weeks. Georgia is hosting the Junior in November, and as a proud Georgian, I'm immensely proud of the chance to show Georgia in the same positive light.

kabayiri

I wish I could even agree that it's a bit of fun...but it isn't.

I even think BGT is getting a bit tired, but it's a much better product. It showcases a wider range of talent. It follows the development of the acts.

Eurovision has failed to keep up with the changing consumer preferences. If other countries wish to enjoy it, fine, let them do so. I don't suggest they stop entering.

antrobus

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Both have used PFI deals...

Yes. That's what I said.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

..Not in agreement with that, however it's not something we can go for or against either party on. That includes my own, who formed part of a government that used such deals as a way of financing.

Here is a history of PFI from somebody that doesn't like it.
http://www.searchingfinance.com/news-and-views/the-history-and-horror-of-the-pfi.html

michaels

I can't understand - if Labour are in favour of 'borrowing to invest' what would be the attraction of a pfi deal to the party? The benefit of (allegedly) transferring the risk must surely be outweighed by the additional financing costs?

OF course 'borrowing to invest' by a company means that you expect additional revenues to cover both the interest cost and the original capital so for me any govt 'borrowing to invest' should be expected to generate additional tax revenue (or I guess at a stretch cost savings on current govt expenditure) in order to pay back the capital and interest costs. I have never seen any of Labour's proposed 'investments' costed in this way so in general they must all imply higher future taxation which is what govt borrowing is.

Enterprise_1701C

michaels wrote: »

I can't understand - if Labour are in favour of 'borrowing to invest' what would be the attraction of a pfi deal to the party? The benefit of (allegedly) transferring the risk must surely be outweighed by the additional financing costs?

OF course 'borrowing to invest' by a company means that you expect additional revenues to cover both the interest cost and the original capital so for me any govt 'borrowing to invest' should be expected to generate additional tax revenue (or I guess at a stretch cost savings on current govt expenditure) in order to pay back the capital and interest costs. I have never seen any of Labour's proposed 'investments' costed in this way so in general they must all imply higher future taxation which is what govt borrowing is.

They get their vanity projects without it going on the balance sheet.

michaels

But they claim that the balance sheet can support it....

Arklight

Labour narrowing the gap in the polls again.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-highest-poll-rating-start-election-campaign-general-election-2017-jeremy-corbyn-a7734866.html


Up tp 32% now, which would be a better result than Ed Milliband managed.


Well, Evil Edna still has a 14 point lead. She doesn't want to keep losing 7 points every 10 days though, as she may have worked out.



Next up - Theresa keeps it real by instructing her chauffeur to drive past a bus stop in Birmingham one of her old form tutors was rumoured to have once used on a prep school field trip, then goes to meet some journalists who've been locked in a cupboard for a week, before bussing in some more Young Conservatives (who all appear to have been dressed from Army and Navy in the 1950s) from the country to appear as the urban yoof. Then still a fortnight to double down on the next Potemkin village while she awaits orders from Paul Dacre.

Filo25

Arklight wrote: »

Labour narrowing the gap in the polls again.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-highest-poll-rating-start-election-campaign-general-election-2017-jeremy-corbyn-a7734866.html


Up tp 32% now, which would be a better result than Ed Milliband managed.


Well, Evil Edna still has a 14 point lead. She doesn't want to keep losing 7 points every 10 days though, as she may have worked out.



Next up - Theresa keeps it real by instructing her chauffeur to drive past a bus stop in Birmingham one of her old form tutors was rumoured to have once used on a prep school field trip, then goes to meet some journalists who've been locked in a cupboard for a week, before bussing in some more Young Conservatives (who all appear to have been dressed from Army and Navy in the 1950s) from the country to appear as the urban yoof. Then still a fortnight to double down on the next Potemkin village while she awaits orders from Paul Dacre.

Tories seems to be between 46-49% depending on pollster, with Labour between 28-32%, still looking pretty comfortable for the Tories there, Labour's gains appear to largely have been at the expense of the LibDems rather than the Tories which isn't a huge potential well of support to tap going forwards

ICM also seem to be implying that Labour may have a turnout problem, which is why their numbers are at the bottom end of that range for them.

Moby

Filo25 wrote: »

Tories seems to be between 46-49% depending on pollster, with Labour between 28-32%, still looking pretty comfortable for the Tories there, Labour's gains appear to largely have been at the expense of the LibDems rather than the Tories which isn't a huge potential well of support to tap going forwards

ICM also seem to be implying that Labour may have a turnout problem, which is why their numbers are at the bottom end of that range for them.

It's probably the Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell effect.....they are toxic to many people who would otherwise vote Labour...........Also UKIP and the tories are stitching things up and that's also going to damage Labour:- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/conservative-candidates-making-electoral-pacts-with-ukip

Filo25

Moby wrote: »

It's probably the Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell effect.....they are toxic to many people who would otherwise vote Labour...........Also UKIP and the tories are stitching things up and that's also going to damage Labour:- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/conservative-candidates-making-electoral-pacts-with-ukip

Yes I think a lot will depend on whether a lot of traditional Labour voters hold their nose and vote Labour in spite of the leadership, or whether they just stay at home.

Personally I think Labour will do slightly better than expected, they haven't had to worry too much about putting a realistic manifesto together due to the low level of likelihood that any of it will ever be implemented, so have been able to promise the world to most of the electorate, the problem of course is that I doubt any of the policies of going after the "rich" "companies" or "banks" would raise anything like as much as the manifesto is likely to indicate.

But as a populist manifesto it will probably serve its purpose to maybe get some support onboard and motivate the base and unions when it comes to the leadership challenge Corbyn will face after the election.