Precautions in case of a Labour win

cfw1994

haf63 wrote: »

Given that its highly unlikley that labour can win outright, I am going to vote tactically to stop teh tory's getting a majority. I am just about ok with a minority labour govt with snp/lib-dems keeping them in check. At least while brexit gets sorted and I may revert back to tories if they stop being such right wing extremists and following trumps style of politics. Cameron and May were Ok as was Blair/brown and Major before him..

Hard for anyone wanting a sensible centre party to vote for

Mmmmm.....my concern over that is how it could be a pretty solid start to "breaking up the Union". Sturgeon would make demands on propping up Corbyn that make the DUP seem like school kids, I would guess!
Maybe it is none of my business whether the Scots break off, but "the UK" does still carry some weight around the world.....& the Scots I know (now living in England), have no vote on the matter, but want the Union to remain.
They say "be careful what you wish for"....I'd modify that to "be careful with tactical voting" !!

MaxiRobriguez

SonOf wrote: »

If you really want to simplify things, Labour will improve public services but build up public debt in doing so. Conservatives then come in to improve public debt but cut public services to do so.

If Labour stay in too long, they build up significant debt. If conservatives stay in too long, they cut back too much.

On day in the future, the interest payments will get so big that there will have to be cuts that remain in place. It isnt a case of if but when. Unless the UK manages to find some energy supply that can only be got from the UK. We had North Sea Gas and Oil but blew that.

I suspect this is mostly right, with the caveat that the Blair administration extended public services cost yet also kept taxes relatively low.

Corbyn's Labour is different. We know he wants a large public spending spree which at least round where I live is desperately needed. If he can find a way to up the tax take without simultaneously lopping off revenue the other side then perhaps maybe he'll be able to embark on some of his plans without further extending the deficit.

A lot of people will say it can't be done, but a lot has changed in 50 years, and many current tax advantages could still be an advantages in the future, just slightly less generous.

Will be an interesting election anyway.

MaxiRobriguez

cfw1994 wrote: »

Mmmmm.....my concern over that is how it could be a pretty solid start to "breaking up the Union". Sturgeon would make demands on propping up Corbyn that make the DUP seem like school kids, I would guess!
Maybe it is none of my business whether the Scots break off, but "the UK" does still carry some weight around the world.....& the Scots I know (now living in England), have no vote on the matter, but want the Union to remain.
They say "be careful what you wish for"....I'd modify that to "be careful with tactical voting" !!

On the other side of the coin, if the Tories win a majority and enact Brexit, the Scots will not only push for a second Indy ref, they would almost be guaranteed to vote for it as well.

The SNP are going to push for a second referendum whatever, that's their whole purpose.

fizio

cfw1994 wrote: »

Mmmmm.....my concern over that is how it could be a pretty solid start to "breaking up the Union". Sturgeon would make demands on propping up Corbyn that make the DUP seem like school kids, I would guess!
Maybe it is none of my business whether the Scots break off, but "the UK" does still carry some weight around the world.....& the Scots I know (now living in England), have no vote on the matter, but want the Union to remain.
They say "be careful what you wish for"....I'd modify that to "be careful with tactical voting" !!

Fair point - though a tory brexit is more than likely to trigger a scotland/ireland separation - ironically no/soft brexit is more likely to keep the union together than a hard brexit. Too tough to call as anything could happen and probably not what either main party is hoping for.

SonOf

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

On the other side of the coin, if the Tories win a majority and enact Brexit, the Scots will not only push for a second Indy ref, they would almost be guaranteed to vote for it as well.

The SNP are going to push for a second referendum whatever, that's their whole purpose.

The problem for the SNP is that once (or IF) the UK leaves the EU, their position gets harder as it will mean campaigning for a hard border between England and Scotland.

As the EU will not allow a soft border between an EU member and a third party country, a hard border is inevitable. The whole NI issue has made this point clear.

Scotland would need to choose to align itself to the EU and lose frictionless access to its largest market (the rUK) and create a hard border or leave the UK and remain in the UK customs union but without many monetary controls and subsidy from England.

Brexit just shows how fraught it could be.

MaxiRobriguez

SonOf wrote: »

The problem for the SNP is that once (or IF) the UK leaves the EU, their position gets harder as it will mean campaigning for a hard border between England and Scotland.

As the EU will not allow a soft border between an EU member and a third party country, a hard border is inevitable. The whole NI issue has made this point clear.

Scotland would need to choose to align itself to the EU and lose frictionless access to its largest market (the rUK) and create a hard border or leave the UK and remain in the UK customs union but without many monetary controls and subsidy from England.

Brexit just shows how fraught it could be.

Yeah I get that, I just don't think the SNP care. They wan't to be a national government with the ability to call the shots. If a hard border is the price, so be it.

DairyQueen

Triumph13 wrote: »

The apparent purge of the moderates is really a purge of the remainers.

Exactly so. It's as dangerous to assume that all Tory Remainers are moderate as it is to assume that all Tory Leavers are right-wing extremists.

One irony of the last few years has been a Remainer-dominated Tory party attempting to exit the EU thwarted by an ideologically anti-EU left-wing opposition. Go figure.

Is it any surprise that our parliament has spent over three years in deadlock. This debacle has demonstrated in spades just how much some MPs prioritise power over the interests of the country. Labour is still a Brexit wolf in Remainer sheep's clothing. A necessary disguise in order to retain the votes of specific Remainer demographics until after the GE.

Triumph13 wrote: »

If you want an example of PR giving disproportionate power to extremists then the recent history of Israel is a good place to start.

Italy is another example of flawed PR. 50-ish governments in as many post-war years.

I am a supporter of the two party system but it requires operational executive and legislative branches plus an effective opposition to succeed. We have now witnessed how dysfunctional the system can be when an issue this divisive crosses party lines.

DairyQueen

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The Labour party is a democratic organisation: [STRIKE]its members[/STRIKE] Momentum make policy, its leaders follow instructions from [STRIKE]Conference[/STRIKE] trade unions. So Corbyn's private opinion of the EU is not terribly relevant: FWIW I am fairly sure that he was sincere when he gave it seven out of ten and so campaigned for Remain three years ago..

Corrected that for you.

If Corbyn's opinion counted then Labour would not have muddied the Brexit waters. But hard left ideology very much counts and 'Remain' is antithetical to their view of 'British jobs for British workers'. The hard left has always held a protectionist view as they consider competition as lowering pay.

The hard left don't want competition. They don't want (cheaper) goods imported. They definitely don't want (cheaper) workers imported.

Anyone wishing to understand the ideology and priorities of this flavour of Labour should read Marx not The Guardian headlines.

michaels

With hindsight Labour would probably have been better off electorally letting May's Brexit lightish go through (with a few concessions to make it look like they had done something) and then agitated for a GE where Brexit itself (which they are finding so difficult) would have been out of the picture and they could have campaigned for a customs union plus single market trade deal which would be cake and eat it for them.

[Deleted User]

DairyQueen wrote: »

Corrected that for you.

If Corbyn's opinion counted then Labour would not have muddied the Brexit waters. But hard left ideology very much counts and 'Remain' is antithetical to their view of 'British jobs for British workers'. The hard left has always held a protectionist view as they consider competition as lowering pay.

The hard left don't want competition. They don't want (cheaper) goods imported. They definitely don't want (cheaper) workers imported.

Anyone wishing to understand the ideology and priorities of this flavour of Labour should read Marx not The Guardian headlines.

Yes, but don’t forget EU state aid rules, constraints on nationalisation and protection to investors. All of these are a “must have” under any customs union/single market arrangement. Corbyn has complained about all of these for the very reason you cited.