Who to vote for?

[Seabag]

Franks Boyle sums it up in this article.

Many people wish David Cameron had never called the referendum in the first place. It says a lot about how badly the last couple of years have gone, that there?s a guy who destroyed Libya, presided over needless austerity and fukced a pig, and we wish that he?d just used his own judgment.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/07/frankie-boyle-election-countdown-praying-prorogue-next-parliament

[diable rouge]

He could go on tour with that article, so many great takes/lines...

[JohnL]

Boris's comments this morning were nasty and mean spirited.

[Seabag]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Boris's comments this morning were nasty and mean

> spirited.

Which ones John? I?ve lost the thread on Johnson?s word soup comments, which I guess is the idea.

[JohnL]

What ?

"Q: Today Priti Patel, the home secretary, is claiming there would be 52 more murders a year under Labour. Where has she got those figures?

Johnson says he does not know."

[diable rouge]

Essential read from David Allen Green's blog.

As some of you have an aversion to links, I've coped and pasted the article...

The L word, the F word, and contemporary UK politics

9th December 2019

In a few days there will be a general election in the United Kingdom.

This post is not about the possible election result ? that is still uncertain and it may even come down to voting intentions which are as yet not settled.

This post is instead about two words that should have had more impact on the campaign, and current politics generally, but have not.

One word begins with L, the other with F.

*

The L word

The first word is ?lie?.

Some commentators in the United Kingdom aver that more should be done to confront politicians with their lies.

Peter Oborne, a journalist of immense integrity, has even sought to document and expose each lie of the current prime minister (the estimable website is here).

This is essential work: nothing in this post should be taken to mean that recording each lie is not important.

But it is not enough.

This is because many politicians now do not care about being called a liar, or even be shown to be one.

Such a reaction is a cost of political business for them ? and some even relish that they ?trigger? such a response as some perverse form of validation.

The ultimate problem is not that many politicians lie.

The ultimate problem is far more worrying and far more difficult to resolve.

The ultimate problem is that many voters want to be lied to.

These voters may pretend otherwise, claiming that they want ?honest politicians?.

In reality, such voters just want politicians to say what the voters want to hear.

There is therefore an incentive for politicians to lie.

Until and unless many voters can be made to care about being lied to, every fine and worthy effort in exposing the lies is (at least in the short-term) futile ? a public good but not enough to effect immediate change.

There are many political lies: small lies, forgettable lies, lies that take longer to expose than any mortal attention span.

But the biggest lie in the current general election ? a lie that may determine the outcome ? is ?Get Brexit Done?.

Brexit cannot be ?done? without years of intense effort and attention.

Entire international relationships have to be rebuilt from scratch; entire areas of law and policy have to be reconstructed; entire social and economic patterns of behaviour have to be re-worked.

And all this in addition to the making of actual decisions about what we want those relationships, laws, policies, and social and economic patterns of behaviour to be.

And all that in turn against the intractable problem of fitting in a Brexit policy within the framework of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Brexit cannot be ?got done? by mere exhortation.

It is a lie but a lie many want to believe and cannot be dissuaded from believing by mere arguments, logic or evidence.

And by the time many voters will come to care that they were lied to, Brexit will be too long gone for any voter choice to make much difference.

*

The F word

The second word ? the F word ? I will not type.

It is a word which has lost its traction when it needed to still have traction.

The word describes the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of populist nationalist authoritarianism, a political phenomenon that despite the heady optimism of democratic campaigners has never been too far away.

Complacently, some believed that the thing had gone away with the end of the second world war, or with the transitions to democracy of Spain and Portugal.

The thing, however, is always there.

What happened in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany and Italy and elsewhere was always just one set of manifestations of the thing.

Populist nationalist authoritarianism has more purchase on voters than many conservatives, liberals and socialists realise.

It is the politics of easy answers.

In the United Kingdom there are those in favour of Brexit who routinely trash the (independent) courts, the (independent) civil service and diplomatic service, the universities, the broadcasters, even the supremacy of parliament.

This populist disdain for independent institutions is unhealthy.

The threat of the ?will of the people? is used as intimidation.

Coupled with nationalistic rhetoric (on immigration and Brexit generally) and authoritarian hostility to legal checks on government (contempt for human rights), you have all the ingredients of the thing described by the F word.

But if you call this thing by its name, it now has little or no effect.

People will yawn and shrug and pay no real attention.

And because what we have before us is not visually the same as the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of the thing ? no uniforms, no goosesteps, and so on ? many of those hearing the F word will regard what is now happening as not being an example of the F word at all.

Of course, using the F word is not as important as stopping the thing it describes from taking hold.

*

Calling politicians ? and pundits ? liars, and describing the vile populist nationalist authoritarianism that they promote as the F word, is not going to stop them lying or the thing the F word describes.

The words are not enough, and it may be that new words are needed to make old warnings.

And unless voters can be made to care about being lied to by politicians, or about the implications of the populist nationalist authoritarianism (again) being promoted, then there will be little to stop either the politicians or the F word thing.

Making voters care about any of this is the challenge for liberal and progressive politicians (and pundits) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

And the biggest challenge is to make enough voters care in time.

[Jules-and-Boo]

Perhaps another letter is G

The gullible amid the public who believe what the media tell them, unquestioningly.

[JohnL]

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Boris's comments this morning were nasty and

> mean

> > spirited.

>

> Which ones John? I?ve lost the thread on Johnson?s

> word soup comments, which I guess is the idea.

EU migrants have been able to ?treat the UK as if it?s part of their own country? for too long,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-news-live-boris-johnson-polls-today-corbyn-brexit-latest-a9238581.html

Don't worry though - Gary Lineker's on the case 'The Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker said the PM was guilty of ?nauseating xenophobia,?'

[JohnL]

dulwichbloke Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cella Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > He has huge personal support - just depends on

> who

> > you rely on for your information and which

> press

> > you choose.

>

> No, it is not which press you choose to read. In

> case you have been living under a rock recently,

> here?s a small selection of JC?s ratings. They are

> major polling companies. Some of course may be

> relative outliers one way or another, but given

> the mass of similar information that?s hardly

> relevant as the trend shows. Net approval is the

> last column.

>

>

The thing is DulwichBloke that Corbyn will not get a majority at this stage and those voting Labour or LD are doing so to stop Boris or restrict his majority.

The larger the majority the more he will claim he has backing for radical right wing policies with no compromise (and I don't believe he is a one nation Tory as he pretends - I could live with that).

[Hemingway]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

so

> they shouldn't vote against their own long term

> interests.

a collapsed, socialist siege economy is against the long term interests of everyone

[cella]

Hemingway Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cella Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> so

> > they shouldn't vote against their own long term

> > interests.

>

> a collapsed, socialist siege economy is against

> the long term interests of everyone

That just your version. A fairer society is what we need.

[cella]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not really sure what you are getting out of this.

> Yes he not competent to be the next prime

> minister. Yes he has many faults.

>

> But WTF the other bloke. I don't think that JC

> could drag us that far to the left as (a)

> resistance in his own party (b) practicalities in

> reversing 30 years of privitisation © the money

> would in deed run out (d) he couldn't achieve it

> all in one term.

>

> But he was voted in by a far more sizable number

> than BJ, not all were extemist/rabid which is far

> truer of the Tory party.

>

> Can we have some positive and practical solutions?

> Even the more modest spending plans by the Tories

> will be in pieces once the hard/harder/no deal

> Brexit happens.

>

> Talking about competence have none of you heard of

> Attila the Stockbroker?

Your posts are alway so peculiar and convoluted - can't even work out properly who you are supporting so won't bother. There are no solutions at this late stage. You just have to stick with what you think is right for most (how anyone can even think that's what Johnson wants apart from his elite mates) or vote tactically.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I agree that Corbyn is bringing the labour party down that Boris has taken dishonesty to a new level; it is hard to think ahead, but none of the parties manifestos will be achieved in the next few years, but a lot of damage can be done.

So, please think further ahead than Jeremy or Boris.

[Rockets]

The fact remains that if the best Labour can hope for is a hung parliament then they have meteorically failed - they should be romping home with a huge majority - but they are not because they have gone too far the other way and it is scaring people (more than Boris scares them).

The rhetoric of tax the rich, ban billionaires, stop the sale of the NHS, nationalise everything, be neutral on Brexit, offer ?58bn to WASPIs (in a "fully costed" manifesto and then say actually that money may need to be borrowed), ban private schools, chuck free stuff at people etc seems not to be resonating enough. Why, because a lot of what they are putting out there does not stand up to scrutiny and are nothing more than soundbites and playing into the right-wing media message of - "these guys will bankrupt the country - again"?

Watch the video in this BBC article and McDonnell's body language towards the Caudwell - his hatred for anyone successful is plain to see (look at his reaction when Caudwell mentions the work he does with charities and McDonnell's body language throughout) and a lot of people actually think that there is no problem being successful and wealthy and you need that in an economy to drive it forward, yet Labour seem to be positioning success as something to be ashamed of or to be attacked - they appear to be trying to recreate Class War of the 80s and they are missing the point entirely - yes tax avoidance should be clamped down upon but they are throwing everyone who is wealthy into the same bucket - just because you are a billionaire doesn't mean you don't pay taxes. It only takes one or two of Caudwell's of this world to leave the UK (remember he has paid ?300m in tax) and then one wonders where they would plan to replace that lost revenue from.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50704546

If Labour don't win they will need to return with a more moderate leadership team and create messages and policies that resonate with the centre-ground voters.

[Hemingway]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hemingway Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > cella Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > so

> > > they shouldn't vote against their own long

> term

> > > interests.

> >

> > a collapsed, socialist siege economy is against

> > the long term interests of everyone

>

>

> That just your version. A fairer society is what

> we need.

it's just based on looking at the economic basket cases of the regimes that Corbyn, McDonnell et al have long praised and wish to copy. They don't praise and support the higher tax, properly run, social democratic mixed economies of Scandinavia ever for example. nope, it's horrible and useless Marxist regimes the world over that these adolescent minded 70 year olds support and want to be.

[cella]

Have you actually read their manifesto? There is absolutely nothing for you be frightened of. Something there for most instead of making it easy for the 1% to make a grab at the expense of actual workers.

[cella]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact remains that if the best Labour can hope

> for is a hung parliament then they have

> meteorically failed - they should be romping home

> with a huge majority - but they are not because

> they have gone too far the other way and it is

> scaring people (more than Boris scares them).

>

> The rhetoric of tax the rich, ban billionaires,

> stop the sale of the NHS, nationalise everything,

> be neutral on Brexit, offer ?58bn to WASPIs (in a

> "fully costed" manifesto and then say actually

> that money may need to be borrowed), ban private

> schools, chuck free stuff at people etc seems not

> to be resonating enough. Why, because a lot of

> what they are putting out there does not stand up

> to scrutiny and are nothing more than soundbites

> and playing into the right-wing media message of -

> "these guys will bankrupt the country - again"?

>

> Watch the video in this BBC article and

> McDonnell's body language towards the Caudwell -

> his hatred for anyone successful is plain to see

> (look at his reaction when Caudwell mentions the

> work he does with charities and McDonnell's body

> language throughout) and a lot of people actually

> think that there is no problem being successful

> and wealthy and you need that in an economy to

> drive it forward, yet Labour seem to be

> positioning success as something to be ashamed of

> or to be attacked - they appear to be trying to

> recreate Class War of the 80s and they are missing

> the point entirely - yes tax avoidance should be

> clamped down upon but they are throwing everyone

> who is wealthy into the same bucket - just because

> you are a billionaire doesn't mean you don't pay

> taxes. It only takes one or two of Caudwell's of

> this world to leave the UK (remember he has paid

> ?300m in tax) and then one wonders where they

> would plan to replace that lost revenue from.

>

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50704546

>

> If Labour don't win they will need to return with

> a more moderate leadership team and create

> messages and policies that resonate with the

> centre-ground voters.

Everything at the start of your second para a lot of people actually want and support. This is to be applauded surely. Unlike Johnson who appears to be offering mind blowing sums to all and sundry (these are guaranteed to disappear apres no deal Brexit) the Labour promises are costed. The additional Waspi money will be borrowed and there is no shame in this. The current government are the biggest borrowers ever on record but just lie about it. Most billionaires don't pay their full tax and you shouldn't be grateful if one or two deign to make an offer to pay an amount then threaten to leave if required to properly pay up. How much money do the serial avoiders, Beckham etc, need before they are happy? Most working people have tax deducted at source and, rightly, don't have the luxury to avoid the contributions that fund our public services. There are plenty of good examples of people who have built empires and still choose to pay tax in this country on what they earn and most people don't mind this at all. You seem to be stuck in a time warp regarding Labour policies.

[Seabag]

This is the thing that ?scares? people. Maybe there?s a disconnect between rhetoric and policy, but it?s an interesting clip on Labour, billionaires and taxing the wealthy.

https://apple.news/An2SiECIpSzSbogmiCw5uQA

You?ve also got countries like Portugal offering wealthy citizens residency.

[Rockets]

Cella - you miss the point of that video entirely.....Caudwell does pay his taxes but will leave if Labour get in because of their draconian attacks on the wealthy - that leaves a hole in the tax received for the UK - where does the Labour government find that money from - what if more tax paying billionaires leave - and as a reminder Corbyn said he thinks 1 billionaire is 1 too many? Borrow more maybe? Add to the borrowing for the WASPI programme that was sold to everyone as fully costed yet it transpires it isn't at all? Would there be no shame in that either?

The top 1% of earners pay 27% of the UK's income tax - just let that sink in for a moment. Imagine 50% of the top 1% leave (because they can or they can move to a tax-haven?) - where does that leave the government coffers and where do Labour look to next?

We all crave for a nirvana like state where everything can be done on the whim and prayer but unfortunately the economy doesn't work like that - and whilst Labour are appealing to voters with the good vs evil mantra unfortunately a lot of it just doesn't stack up when you scratch beneath the surface.

[fishbiscuits]

Cella, you say that the Labour promises are costed. And yes, this is what they tell us. But it's not really the truth IMO. The majority of the nationalization program (100s of billions?) will be paid for from borrowing.

Saying that, I don't disagree with Labour on the need for higher taxation... yes some of us will face quite a stiff hike, but I'd stop short of calling a 50% tax rate "draconian". I think it's obvious to most of us that hospitals, schools, and emergency services are under-resourced. I thought Caudwell came out of that exchange pretty badly... like a kid throwing his toys out of the pram. And McDonnell (who I don't like) looked the much more coherent... mind you, he is a professional politician, so he probably should do...

[cella]

John McD is a skilled politician who is credible. He's spent 2 years going round all the financial institutions and has garnered a lot of support. I really don't have time for the richest in our society getting uppity when they will be required to pay a small amount extra in tax, if they pay any at all, as they are in the top percentage bracket. People need to embrace the idea that with the huge gap between mega rich and so much poverty we have to start addressing this. Everything Johnson says has to be taken with a pinch of salt as he is a man of no convictions. His stance today on the plight of the 4 year old sleeping on the hospital floor perfectly sums up him and his cronies attitude to the plight of vast swathes in our country.

[malumbu]

Points I was making were

(a) the value of debating how useless/unliked/incompetent Corbyn is. we know that so what is the point of reiterating.

(b) That JC's full ambitions could not be achieved due to financial and political factors and that five years would not be long enough

© That JC was voted in by a much larger number of Labour members than BJ so you could surmise that a tiny number have ended up influencing the move to the right and the future shape of the country.

(d) a hard Brexit will screw up Torries modest spending plans

(e) that I have no answers - I'm pleased that you enjoy my post but do you?

>

>

> Your posts are alway so peculiar and convoluted -

> can't even work out properly who you are

> supporting so won't bother. There are no solutions

> at this late stage. You just have to stick with

> what you think is right for most (how anyone can

> even think that's what Johnson wants apart from

> his elite mates) or vote tactically.

[uncleglen]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> John McD is a skilled politician who is credible.

> He's spent 2 years going round all the financial

> institutions and has garnered a lot of support. I

> really don't have time for the richest in our

> society getting uppity when they will be required

> to pay a small amount extra in tax, if they pay

> any at all, as they are in the top percentage

> bracket. People need to embrace the idea that with

> the huge gap between mega rich and so much poverty

> we have to start addressing this. Everything

> Johnson says has to be taken with a pinch of salt

> as he is a man of no convictions. His stance today

> on the plight of the 4 year old sleeping on the

> hospital floor perfectly sums up him and his

> cronies attitude to the plight of vast swathes in

> our country.

It is well known that uncontrolled immigration has the biggest impact on the poorer sections of society- even the Archbishop of Canterbury said that...so thanks to Labour for that. And it is well known that rich people create jobs and employ people. And the hospital thing is the result of overpopulation and winter sickness and bed blocking and was probably staged- after all the RICH doctors send their kids to private schools and for some reason think that Labour will improve the NHS so will display red posters- just have a look around Dulwich Village- but unfortunately the extra people that Labour let into the country who are in the main unskilled will be another burden on the public sector....and so the snowball grows and grows- and we have to plunder the poor countries for their medical staff...

After Blair let in the East Europeans 2 years before France and Germany and they came here Slough council had to weigh its sewage to prove that it had a problem with the extra people and the dire lack of infrastructure to support the increase in population.

All Labour do is look after their own supporters-after all what better way is there to pander to the Muslim vote than appear unashamedly anti-Semitic

[cella]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Points I was making were

>

> (a) the value of debating how

> useless/unliked/incompetent Corbyn is. we know

> that so what is the point of reiterating.

>

> (b) That JC's full ambitions could not be achieved

> due to financial and political factors and that

> five years would not be long enough

>

> © That JC was voted in by a much larger number

> of Labour members than BJ so you could surmise

> that a tiny number have ended up influencing the

> move to the right and the future shape of the

> country.

>

> (d) a hard Brexit will screw up Torries modest

> spending plans

>

> (e) that I have no answers - I'm pleased that you

> enjoy my post but do you?

>

> >

>

> >

> > Your posts are alway so peculiar and convoluted

> -

> > can't even work out properly who you are

> > supporting so won't bother. There are no

> solutions

> > at this late stage. You just have to stick with

> > what you think is right for most (how anyone

> can

> > even think that's what Johnson wants apart from

> > his elite mates) or vote tactically.

Do I what?

[cella]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cella Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > John McD is a skilled politician who is

> credible.

> > He's spent 2 years going round all the

> financial

> > institutions and has garnered a lot of support.

> I

> > really don't have time for the richest in our

> > society getting uppity when they will be

> required

> > to pay a small amount extra in tax, if they pay

> > any at all, as they are in the top percentage

> > bracket. People need to embrace the idea that

> with

> > the huge gap between mega rich and so much

> poverty

> > we have to start addressing this. Everything

> > Johnson says has to be taken with a pinch of

> salt

> > as he is a man of no convictions. His stance

> today

> > on the plight of the 4 year old sleeping on the

> > hospital floor perfectly sums up him and his

> > cronies attitude to the plight of vast swathes

> in

> > our country.

>

> It is well known that uncontrolled immigration has

> the biggest impact on the poorer sections of

> society- even the Archbishop of Canterbury said

> that...so thanks to Labour for that. And it is

> well known that rich people create jobs and employ

> people. And the hospital thing is the result of

> overpopulation and winter sickness and bed

> blocking and was probably staged- after all the

> RICH doctors send their kids to private schools

> and for some reason think that Labour will improve

> the NHS so will display red posters- just have a

> look around Dulwich Village- but unfortunately the

> extra people that Labour let into the country who

> are in the main unskilled will be another burden

> on the public sector....and so the snowball grows

> and grows- and we have to plunder the poor

> countries for their medical staff...

> After Blair let in the East Europeans 2 years

> before France and Germany and they came here

> Slough council had to weigh its sewage to prove

> that it had a problem with the extra people and

> the dire lack of infrastructure to support the

> increase in population.

> All Labour do is look after their own

> supporters-after all what better way is there to

> pander to the Muslim vote than appear unashamedly

> anti-Semitic

My post was not an invitation for you to latch on and launch more of your unpleasant views. I do not wish to be associated with this sort of racism thanks.