UK - December 2019 General Election

[P.J. Denyer]

Someone should have put that on the side of a big red bus.

Perhaps our PM could make a scale mock up out of a wine box.

 

[Vixen]

I don't think that any of this is true or correct. And I find it extremely interesting (to put it kindly) that so many posters in this thread - in fact almost all posters in this thread - have regurgitated the dogma about Labour being somehow the panacea for people on low income or benefits, being the saviours and protectors of the NHS, and being the only one of the two main parties that "cares".

As at least The Don pointed out, the world changes and some people gain from those changes and others lose out. There are extremely good reasons why we effectively don't have a coal industry any longer, and why industries such as ship-building and heavy manufacturing are a small fraction of what they were only a generation or so ago. Yet the Labour party of those times - and, I can be near-certain, the Labour party of last week (had the situation been the same) - was talking of "saving" those sorts of industries.

And at the same time, it's reductive nonsense to believe and espouse the view that Conservative policy in government is deliberately aimed at punishing poor/ill/disabled/unemployed people (and that, by contrast, Labour would somehow "save" such people), or that a Conservative government aims to starve the NHS of resources and then sell bits of it off to the highest bidder (and that again, by contrast, Labour would somehow raise the NHS up to magnificence*).

See, there isn't a Magical Money Tree. Instead, there is a Real Money Tree. And one philosophy of trying to make the Real Money Tree grow - and thereby to have more public funds to allow for increased funding of public services - is to focus on growing the economy. By doing that (according to this philosophy), more people go into work and with increased productivity comes increased wages; both of those things result in a sizeable increase in income tax/NI revenue. And if the economy grows, there's the prospect of increased export of goods and services, the prospect of a lesser need to import goods and service, and the prospect of inward investment into the UK; all of those things ultimately result in healthier public finances as well.

The administrations of 2010 onwards didn't impose austerity conditions (though "austerity" is a relative term - as is "poverty") in order to crap on vulnerable members of society. They did so in the hope (whether that hope was misguided or not) of conserving public finances and trying to stimulate the economy in other, monetarist, ways. And the hope was that gearing down the public finances would allow ultimately for strength in years to come (a (imperfect) analogy might be that if you're driving your car at 70mph in 5th gear and you suddenly have to slam on the brakes and slow down to 10mph, you're not going to try to build up speed again in the same 5th gear, but rather you'll select 2nd gear - and that will allow you to build up your speed again effectively and smoothly).

Now of course there's an excellent argument to be had about whether austerity is (or, more accuratly, was) an effective way of trying to rebuild the economy and public finances. Just as there's an excellent argument to be had over whether monetarism (in any of its many flavours and degrees) or fiscal strategies are the best way to govern a country. But simply to parrot this (hard left) Labour claptrap about Labour being able to save everything and the Evil Tories' only goal being to enrich themselves and their friends while deliberately defecating from a great height onto vulnerable groups in society and public institutions such as the NHS..... is to reduce the debate to simplistic and misleading rhetoric.



* In fact, well over half of the (very limited) privatisation of the NHS to date was conducted under a Labour administration (Blair). And that same Labour administration allowed itself to become seduced by the PFI fairies, because PFI allowed them to get shiny new hospitals (and schools, and other public buildings) built "for free" - that's to say with zero up-front government funding and therefore zero negative impact on the public balance sheet; but of course there's no such thing as a free lunch, and the rent-back and facilities maintenance cost are eye-wateringly high and - over the useful life of the facilities - substantially higher than if the govt had done things conventionally.

So far so good. In government finance the current account is called the budget deficit. Taxes and surpluses come in to pay for expenses like the NHS and education. The total public debt is the accumulated total over time. It is called misleadingly the national debt, but it is only government debt.

In 2010 austerity started with the aim of reducing public debt. It was a dramatic failure as debt soared and jumped 80%: from £1 trillion in 2010 to £1.8 trillion this year.

Where did all the money go from the cuts? The weakness of the economy meant a huge drop in tax revenue. Austerity was the worst policy for the time because it made matters worse. Public sector is part of the economy which creates growth and it undermined the economy. The only way forward is through growth, not cuts.

How austerity failed:

The consequences of austerity are well known as many public services were cut to the bone:

• The NHS lost endless services, 40,000 beds, 50,000 nurses.

• School services have been cut with schools needing to ask parents for basic
equipment.

• Poverty stalks society with in a class of 30 children on average 9 are in poverty, 70% of the poor are working (Child Poverty Action Group).

• Homelessness jumped and is visible on our streets everywhere as well as
deaths.Children’s homelessness has increased 51% since 2014 (Shelter).

But the rich, by contrast, saw their incomes soar as the number of billionaires doubled, the richest 1% own as much as 80% or the same as 53 million least well off ( Equality Trust). The claim of austerity was that “we’re all in the same boat”, but clearly not.

Real output per hour has been stagnant since 2010. Britain has fared far worse than competitors in the developed world.

Britain’s investment has been in the doldrums for decades and it continued its decline over recent years.

Britain’s trade was struggling before austerity and it deteriorated further after.

While public debt is highlighted in the media, company debt is much worse and is a major straitjacket on growth.

Problem is, with the British company sector in debt, there is no-one willing to take investment on. In Britain’s case, it is heavily dependent on a large
financial sector which suffered worse than other countries and pulled the country into a longer and deeper recession than most of the developed world. This is a serious imbalance and has been causing headaches for decades in all governments. The dire trade balance is paid for from services, or else balance of payments problems loom. Industrial investment is much needed but where does it come from?

Only the state can kick this off as the wider economy is struggling. Yes, public debt is large but still smaller than most other comparable economies. It is a world debt problem, not a British problem.

Conditions are good for this public investment. First interest rates are at an historic low and interest payments on public debt are also low because this. Second, just 19% of public debt is held abroad so only that will be subject to variable currencies. The failed “quantitative easing” program to get things going resulted fortuitously in the Bank of England holding nearly a quarter of public debt and the rest is held in £’s.

Any government will see expenditure rise willy-nilly. The choice was between an inept government which wants to rest on its laurels and reward a few until everything goes pear-shaped. Or one that sees drastic change is needed to bring the majority into the equation.

I am afraid Boris Johnson's record (as mayor of London and the Jennifer Acuri affair) shows he has little economic or financial acumen and it's doubtful there is much integrity there, either.

 

[GlennB]

Truth is, working class populations tend to be densely populated (=one ward) whereas middle-class areas are widely spread out in green, leafy areas of relatively low density, which means the net sum of say, thirty-two middle-class areas, get thirty-two Conservative seats for the same net population as the one densely packed working class Labour seat.

Rubbish. Constituencies are not perfectly balanced in their electoral roll numbers but the difference isn't even remotely 32-fold. In fact the smallest on mainland UK is 39k, while the largest is 78k. Even that 39k is an extreme.

My old constituency was a country area, has been Con for a while now, and some 65k votes were cast there the other day. Corbyn's constituency saw a lower number of votes. The Lab win in Putney (just for example) was also based on a lower vote than my old one in the country constituency of Somerton and Frome.

 

[Vixen]

Rubbish. Constituencies are not perfectly balanced in their electoral roll numbers but the difference isn't even remotely 32-fold. In fact the smallest on mainland UK is 39k, while the largest is 78k. Even that 39k is an extreme.

My old constituency was a country area, has been Con for a while now, and some 65k votes were cast there the other day. Corbyn's constituency saw a lower number of votes. The Lab win in Putney (just for example) was also based on a lower vote than my old one in the country constituency of Somerton and Frome.

Sure. I was exaggerating to make a point.

 

[Information Analyst]

You missed anything involving "morals of an alley cat", is it too late to edit?

A bit harsh on alley cats.

 

[GlennB]

Sure. I was exaggerating to make a point.

Of course you were

What was the point supposed to be, by the way?

 

[Information Analyst]

BTW I do feel the BBC should be added to the list of 'turkeys'. They bent over backwards to avoid putting Boris on the spot but I doubt its going to save them from 'reform'.

I have issues with how the BBC covered the election, but Johnson flatly refusing to be interviewed - or to appear in certain debates (not all BBC) - is hardly the BBC's fault.

 

[ceptimus]

They never 'left' they were thrown out by Boris.

Yes, some of them were thrown out for opposing the government's main policy and against the manifestos they'd stood on. They then stood as turncoat independents against their own former party. Thankfully the voters had the good sense to throw them all onto the scrapheap.

 

[Puppycow]

I wonder what would have happened if remainers had formed a new party, as I suggested earlier this year. Just a single-issue party with no ideological baggage other than they want to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU. Not all this other stuff that Corbyn was promising, just one single goal that remainers of all different political persuasions could vote for.

 

[angrysoba]

I wonder what would have happened if remainers had formed a new party, as I suggested earlier this year. Just a single-issue party with no ideological baggage other than they want to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU. Not all this other stuff that Corbyn was promising, just one single goal that remainers of all different political persuasions could vote for.

If that had happened, they probably could have won millions of votes.

And no seats.

And split any other anti-Tory votes to make sure that Labour and Lib Dems received fewer seats as well.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The way I see it, Jeremy Corbyn want to stay at the helm long enough to hand over the reins to a hand-picked successor.

The abject failure at the polls is a clear indication that his policies are absolutely on the money. The fewer votes you attract, the less you are pandering to the bourgoisie and hence are ideologically pure.

When you start attracting mass support for your policies, it's clear indication that you are selling out.

I posted links upthread that show that is policies were popular, and that the biggest reason why people didn't vote for Labour was because of him, personally.

 

[Darat]

the Brexit Ltd company I think cost Labour some seats. Perhaps Labour should sue the company for loss of earnings?

 

[Puppycow]

If that had happened, they probably could have won millions of votes.

And no seats.

And split any other anti-Tory votes to make sure that Labour and Lib Dems received fewer seats as well.

The Brexit party didn't win any seats either but they still seem to have achieved the result they wanted. More people voted for remain in the 2016 referendum than voted for Conservative party in this election. You don't need an absolute majority of votes to win a majority of seats. They could have been strategic about which constituencies to run in and which ones to leave alone.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, some of them were thrown out for opposing the government's main policy and against the manifestos they'd stood on. They then stood as turncoat independents against their own former party. Thankfully the voters had the good sense to throw them all onto the scrapheap.

So you think loyalty - no matter how despicable you find a policy - is more desirable than standing up for your principles and values.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder what would have happened if remainers had formed a new party, as I suggested earlier this year. Just a single-issue party with no ideological baggage other than they want to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU. Not all this other stuff that Corbyn was promising, just one single goal that remainers of all different political persuasions could vote for.

Unfortunately, nobody could suffer Jo Swinson.

 

[angrysoba]

The Brexit party didn't win any seats either but they still seem to have achieved the result they wanted.

If that is the case, they could have achieved the result they wanted without running at all. Are there any seats that they affected by running?

More people voted for remain in the 2016 referendum than voted for Conservative party in this election.

Pretty meaningless. More people turned out for the referendum for a start.

You don't need an absolute majority of votes to win a majority of seats. They could have been strategic about which constituencies to run in and which ones to leave alone.

I don't see that as being very likely. As it happens, there was a party - Change UK which contested three seats of former members of the Tories and Labour Party, and they were trounced in the election. Anna Soubry, who was a Tory even saw the Tories vote rise. Dominic Grieve who stood as an independent against the Tories in his old seat also lost massively. I don't see a Remain Party doing well at all, particularly in a general election where people care about other issues.

The seats a Remain Party would have been likely to win are seats that the Lib Dems, SNP and Green did win.

 

[Arcade22]

Many candidates in marginal Labour seats reported feeling frustrated that hundreds of activists were being sent to Boris Johnson’s Uxbridge seat, for example, when some elsewhere were having to cancel canvassing sessions because of low turnout.

The lack of focus also appeared to extend to Labour’s policy offer, and the strategy for communicating it to a wary electorate.

The slimline manifesto of 2017 – and its “For the many, not the few” slogan – was ditched in favour of a weightier document and several subsidiary booklets about nationalisation, boosting investment and a string of other policies.

Instead of the Tories’ fearsome message discipline, which saw their “get Brexit done” slogan hammered home at every opportunity, Labour appeared to flit from one issue to another. The new slogan – “It’s time for real change” – also appeared more nebulous than its predecessor.

“One day we’re talking about workers’ rights; the next day we’re talking about pensions; the next day we’re talking about free broadband. It’s pick and mix,” said an insider. Another complained of “policy incontinence”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/inside-labours-campaign-behind

Apparently promising so many free things to everyone (except the hated capitalist slave-drivers, who will foot the bill for everything before their eventual executions) isn't a recipe for success, no matter how individually popular any one of the proposals might be.

This was the Brexit election though, next time the populace will rally behind Corbyns designated heir and their eventual promise to nationalize the banks.

 

[ceptimus]

The Brexit party didn't win any seats either but they still seem to have achieved the result they wanted. More people voted for remain in the 2016 referendum than voted for Conservative party in this election. You don't need an absolute majority of votes to win a majority of seats. They could have been strategic about which constituencies to run in and which ones to leave alone.

And, of course, even more people voted leave in the referendum.

 

[Arcade22]

If that is the case, they could have achieved the result they wanted without running at all. Are there any seats that they affected by running?

Britain has a first-past-the-post^WP electoral system that can quite often (as demonstrated in plenty of different electoral districts in this specific election) lead to candidates winning from a simple plurality of votes, because other votes were split between different candidates.

See vote splitting^WP and spoiler effect^WP. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[ceptimus]

So you think loyalty - no matter how despicable you find a policy - is more desirable than standing up for your principles and values.

Yes. The hypocrites should never have stood for the Tories in the 2017 election, when they were directly opposed to the main manifesto promise they were standing on. They should have stood as independents or for other parties back then. Although technically people vote for an individual rather than a party, in practice, people do make their vote along party lines. Those MPs were cheats and liars: people voted for them thinking they were electing Tories, and what they actually got were Lib Dems in disguise.