the snap general election thread

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

What parts of the Labour Manifesto are communist? I can understand you not liking Corbyn and being a Conservative (many who benefit from generous public sector pensions are) but calling Labour policies Communist seems rather extreme to me.

The current Labour policies are far to the left of anything offered to the UK electorate since...I was about to say 1982 but I think it is to the left of that. It is also far to the left of anything offered by a mainstream party recently in Europe, the US, Canada or Australia and probably closer to Venezuela than any where else.

Conrad wrote: »

Clarification for Labour voters, regards nuclear war.

I keep hearing Labour voters saying if someone 'dropped' a nuclear bomb on us everything would be destroyed. They claim there's no point us having them as there would be nothing left of the UK anyway.

This is total ignorance.

America did 1022 nuclear detonations in the Nevada desert, 100 of these above ground. People watched the mushroom clouds from Las Vegas.

The nearest town was about 50 miles away and whilst higher long term cancer was found, the town was not destroyed in the way these Labour people imply would be the case from just one or a few bombs/missiles hitting the UK

There, I've got it off me chest. Many Labour folk claim they are all about facts, but all too often I hear the same old myths and nonsense trotted out, and before anyone says it, no we do not need Americas codes to launch our weapons, that's another urban myth

Does not compute - how can any one question the Labour policy Trident Renewal when they have either no policy or several ??

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

My problem with Labour is twofold : over ambition and timing.

If you don't trust a party to be able to implement what they say on paper, then you don't really have a starting point, do you?

How many large scale projects have failed to deliver on their promises?

NHS IT system for one. The £50bn schools PFI program for another. I'd have a decent wager on Universal Credit being over budget when it is finally rolled out. £1bn was wasted on an aborted ID card system. The Air Craft carriers are well over budget. The air refuelling tanker project went from £1.5bn to £10.5bn in cost. The Olympics were originally supposed to cost £2.3bn.

This isn't an exhaustive list, and all these projects have been this century.

The ideas that Corbyn proposes could take years to roll out, and what if a future government reverses the decisions.

Isn't it all back to see-saw politics?

Elections are about choice and while people may not like the choice that Labour offer it is at least a choice. I will not be voting for it either largely because I do not believe that Corbyn is likely to be able to win enough seats to make a difference. I also do not have to make the choice because I live in a constituency in which the Lib Dems have a better chance of winning than Labour.

Like Cameron before her it is so easy to rant that Labour's figures do not add up. But when challenged to allow the OBR to give an opinion on the matter neither takes up the challenge which to me suggests they do add up. But adding up and being sensible are different things. For example I see nothing wrong with not renewing commercial rail franchises as they come up, but little point in spending scarce resources on water nationalisation even if the industry is just a privately owned monopoly.

Filo25

BobQ wrote: »

Elections are about choice and while people may not like the choice that Labour offer it is at least a choice. I will not be voting for it either largely because I do not believe that Corbyn is likely to be able to win enough seats to make a difference. I also do not have to make the choice because I live in a constituency in which the Lib Dems have a better chance of winning than Labour.

Like Cameron before her it is so easy to rant that Labour's figures do not add up. But when challenged to allow the OBR to give an opinion on the matter neither takes up the challenge which to me suggests they do add up. But adding up and being sensible are different things. For example I see nothing wrong with not renewing commercial rail franchises as they come up, but little point in spending scarce resources on water nationalisation even if the industry is just a privately owned monopoly.

I wouldn't argue with much of that either.

I think the IFS has cast significant doubt on how much Labour's tax rises would raise, they thought probably £20-30bn as opposed to was it £47bn in the manifesto?

Unfortunately significant changes to taxation tends to lead to adverse impacts on tax take due to changing behaviour/avoidance..

Of course on the other hand the Conservative manifesto is a study in vagueness with very little policy detail in there in the first place, but they are fortunate to be starting from a place of increased public trust compared to Labour so will generally attract less scrutiny.

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

My problem with Labour is twofold : over ambition and timing.

If you don't trust a party to be able to implement what they say on paper, then you don't really have a starting point, do you?

How many large scale projects have failed to deliver on their promises?

NHS IT system for one. The £50bn schools PFI program for another. I'd have a decent wager on Universal Credit being over budget when it is finally rolled out. £1bn was wasted on an aborted ID card system. The Air Craft carriers are well over budget. The air refuelling tanker project went from £1.5bn to £10.5bn in cost. The Olympics were originally supposed to cost £2.3bn.

This isn't an exhaustive list, and all these projects have been this century.

The ideas that Corbyn proposes could take years to roll out, and what if a future government reverses the decisions.

Isn't it all back to see-saw politics?

As to the big projects you are right but this is true of most large projects in the private sector as well. It is also not peculiar to the UK.

Project Management is not as simple as many would have us believe and the techniques for managing risk and handling complexity are not as mature as the corporate world pretends.

The days when the public sector directly manage large projects have largely gone. Most large public sector projects are managed by the private sector suppliers. It may be that some projects suffer from a degree of customer interference but that is inevitable when problems start to emerge. The difference with public sector projects is they are subject to public scrutiny. Who cares if a private sector IT project costs twice as much as planned if tax payers money is not being spent?

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

The nearest town was about 50 miles away and whilst higher long term cancer was found

How much of the UK land area is more than 50 miles from a town?

If a foe targeted one of these land areas how lucky would that be?

How high is "higher long term cancer"?

How acceptable is this level "higher long term cancer"?

But yes I agree a small weapon would not be the end of the world.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

The current Labour policies are far to the left of anything offered to the UK electorate since...I was about to say 1982 but I think it is to the left of that. It is also far to the left of anything offered by a mainstream party recently in Europe, the US, Canada or Australia and probably closer to Venezuela than any where else.

That comment is worthy of the vagueness of the Conservative manifesto.

Labelling their policies as Venezuelan does not answer my question as to which policies are communist? Which are Venezuelan?

LHW99

I don't know much about communist policies but the nationalisation policies (and a number of others) remind me of the days of the Wilson era.
Unfortunately the result lead to the IMF being called in.
The last Labour government didn't do much for the country's finances either, so I am not inclined to give them a third chance (if I can contribute to keeping their vote share down).
While I generally agree with a number of their social policies, those have to be paid for, and IMO taking a loan to do so seems too much like mortgaging the next generation's future.

Filo25

Looks like the Yougov fieldwork was largely done after the Tory manifesto launch.

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 35% (+3)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 3% (-3)

(via @YouGov / 18 - 19 May)
Chgs. w/ 17 May)

Survation fully after manifesto launch as well

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-2)
LAB: 34% (+4)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 3% (-1)

(via @Survation / 19 - 20 May)

Zero_Gravitas

Conrad wrote: »

Clarification for Labour voters, regards nuclear war.

I keep hearing Labour voters saying if someone 'dropped' a nuclear bomb on us everything would be destroyed. They claim there's no point us having them as there would be nothing left of the UK anyway.

This is total ignorance.

America did 1022 nuclear detonations in the Nevada desert, 100 of these above ground. People watched the mushroom clouds from Las Vegas.

The nearest town was about 50 miles away and whilst higher long term cancer was found, the town was not destroyed in the way these Labour people imply would be the case from just one or a few bombs/missiles hitting the UK

There, Ive got it off me chest. Many Labour folk claim they are all about facts, but all too often I hear the same old myths and nonsense trotted out, and before anyone says it, no we do not need Americas codes to launch our weapons, thats another urban myth

The weapons tested above ground in Nevada were all relatively small in nuclear terms - up to 1000 ktn. In comparison, the Russian "Satan 2" missile can deliver 10 separate warheads capable of destroying an area the size of France, or Texas. Given that France is over twice the area of the UK I'd suggest that there wouldn't be much left of the UK after an attack.

Just for the record, I believe we should retain an independent nuclear deterrent, but I also believe that facts are important, which is why I am correcting the nonsense the Conrad has written above.

CKhalvashi

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Yes.
It is because you are another devout pro-EU antagonist determined therefore to find fault with anything and everything which does not conform to your pro-EU stance.
This is admittedly no different in many ways to those who are so devoutly pro-Brexit that the opposite applies.

I mentioned nothing of the EU in that, except that I don't feel the current plan of 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a good one at all.

I do not necessarily agree with all the Tory manifesto says.
I do however at least attempt a more balanced and I hope reasonable stance.
Perhaps you could try the same?

Please do let me explain.

"Yes to fracking.
No to renewable energy."
Not quite the full story, is it?
Increasing our own supply of energy (regardless of source) reduces both cost and dependence upon others, does it not?

Fracking relies on a loophole in the law, however it can affect drinking water, degrade infrastructure and cause serious damage to the environment.

I want to see increased use of renewable energy and biofuels, including in road vehicles and aircraft, so we are going completely against what I believe is right in this situation.

"Yes to car crash Brexit."
Oh please!
Pull your head out of wherever it is and look at the real world.
It really won't end all of a sudden, you know.
The vast majority of evidence so far does not correspond to a "car crash" scenario despite your belief to the contrary.

'We continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal' (top of page 8)

This gives the Conservatives full power to walk away at any time, which is a frankly scary thought given they seem to be ruled by the Daily Heil and Torygraph. Don't forget the job of an outgoing member and ex-Chancellor.

I also note they're scared to stand up to the press, as there is an express commitment to discontinue the Leveson inquiry.

"No to internet freedom."
Really?
So how will this affect you or I, in real terms and as law-abiding citizens?

Far more information is needed on exactly what the plans are, however from the wording in the manifesto it would seem the plan is to assume the public can't regulate their own usage of the internet, ensuring the Conservatives can.

I use some forms of communication that are encrypted partly due to cost, because I don't feel comfortable with any government being aware of absolutely everything I do, nor do I see the need for it. In the case of a genuine issue those messages are available for inspection, however I don't believe that such things can be routine.

I am happy to abide by the laws of the UK as they currently are, however I don't need to be wrapped in cotton wool, nor is it the responsibility of any government to do so with their citizens.

"No to treating those that genuinely need our help with any compassion at all, in terms of those domestically and refugees."
Show us where in the manifesto that carp is suggested?
Methinks firstly you refer to elderly provisions - you disagree with means testing because?
Presumably then you think that funding from public funds is a right, regardless of circumstances?
Secondly I suggest you re-read regarding foreign aid and refugees.
Or is "Wherever possible, offer asylum and refuge to people in parts of the world affected by conflict and oppression, rather than to those who have made it to Britain." somehow offensive to you?

For the first part I was actually referring to taking from those that live on the breadline, be that some pensioners, unemployed, disabled etc. Nominally these groups have rights to access what is required, however in the case of things like ESA and PIP these rights aren't always guaranteed. I'm concerned at even pensioners having access to help required when living on nothing but a basic state pension, especially when their only asset is a house. I'm not referring to the residential care funding here, more things to stop it get to that stage.

For the second part, I don't believe in granting asylum to everyone that asks for it, however at the same time we need to ensure that we are doing our fair share, both in Europe and the world, and if we're not settling refugees in Europe ourselves, we should be doing our bit to help our European neighbours with processing, as it's the right thing to do. It also means that we can set a target (just as an example 50000) that makes the government look good, assist with the processing offshore, and then decide how to proceed.

I reiterate:
"I do not necessarily agree with all the Tory manifesto says.
I do however at least attempt a more balanced and I hope reasonable stance.
Perhaps you could try the same?"

For the reasons above, I believe I have been reasonable, even if the original post is crudely worded. I doubt we're going to see eye to eye on this one however.