General Election 2024?

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,434]

Labour social media team on their game once again

 

 

 

[RoverAndOut 4,073]

Another Tory Party Political Broadcast. Guess what they talked about? That's right - Labour's secret tax plans. 

 

High productions values? Nope, literally Laura Trott's baloney in response to the Labour manifesto. Standing at a podium smirking her way through the same lies they've told for 4 weeks (that have really helped the campaign so far). Oh, and, for the second week in a row, the words "Vote Conservative" featured nowhere in the broadcast.

 

Loved hearing her explain how Labour secretly robbed off pensions in 1997, as if they didn't also bring thousands of pensioners out of poverty and deliver a decade of continuous growth. The sheer effrontery of the woman!

 

I cannot wait to see her join the rest of her piss poor, lying, desperate colleagues on the scrap heap on July 4th.

[Spade_Cooley 9,205]

Shout out to Waveney Valley which, according to the latest MRP data, is set to become the first Green/Reform marginal in the country.

[En Passant 3,213]

Forgive me if I'm missing something but no matter who gets in:

 

1. We have the highest overall tax burden in 70 years of recorded history.

2. Despite this there's not enough funding for increases anywhere. There's shortfalls everywhere.

3. Borrowing is 97% of GDP, the highest its been in years. So we can't borrow our way out of it easily.

 

Thus either

1. Taxes are going up somewhere, or 

2. Austerity is returning for a while.

Relying on 'growth' as a way out of this is about the equivalent of a 'rain dance' surely?

 

I know they can't be completely honest in an electioneering cycle. But they damn well are going to have to be once in or I'm going to be pretty pissed off at them.

I'm no political analyst though. Perhaps somebody who is can point out where my simplicity falls down.

[RoverAndOut 4,073]

12 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Forgive me if I'm missing something but no matter who gets in:

 

1. We have the highest overall tax burden in 70 years of recorded history.

2. Despite this there's not enough funding for increases anywhere. There's shortfalls everywhere.

3. Borrowing is 97% of GDP, the highest its been in years. So we can't borrow our way out of it easily.

 

Thus either

1. Taxes are going up somewhere, or 

2. Austerity is returning for a while.

Relying on 'growth' as a way out of this is about the equivalent of a 'rain dance' surely?

 

I know they can't be completely honest in an electioneering cycle. But they damn well are going to have to be once in or I'm going to be pretty pissed off at them.

I'm no political analyst though. Perhaps somebody who is can point out where my simplicity falls down.

 

All broadly correct. Starmer is hopeful that if he can get the economy moving, though, he can limit the need to find money from tax rises or spending cuts. But, equally, Labour won't know exactly what the state of the books are until Rachel Reeves is in the Treasury. The simple fact is that the Tories inherited an economy in recovery from the financial crisis and have completely trashed it thanks to austerity, Brexit, Covid and Trussonomics - and 3 of those were entirely self-inflicted. There are no easy fixes now.

[RoverAndOut 4,073]

23 minutes ago, Spade_Cooley said:

Shout out to Waveney Valley which, according to the latest MRP data, is set to become the first Green/Reform marginal in the country.

 

Where are you getting that from?!

[Spade_Cooley 9,205]

25 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Where are you getting that from?!

 

https://x.com/AdamWJT/status/1803117528555667770

[maryportfuncity 10,239]

2 hours ago, Father Brown said:

I put Corbyn down in the Portillo Moment thread. He's been the MP since 1983, but as an Independent running against Labour this time it's going to show how much personal support he has locally.

More than certain that he'll lose but I'm interested by how much.

 

 

Was deep in conversation with the Voice of Young Maryport on this one, Corbyn has tremendous personal support there and would be guaranteed to stay true to his left wing politics, and he walks the walk by way of having a solid record as a good constituency MP. So, polls and trusting what any voter thereabouts tells you might be very unreliable where that seat is concerned. 

[En Passant 3,213]

2 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

Starmer is hopeful that if he can get the economy moving, though, he can limit the need to find money from tax rises or spending cuts

 

So, basically the 'rain dance' option.

And if that doesn't happen. Tax rises or spending cuts, or both.

 

2 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

But, equally, Labour won't know exactly what the state of the books are until Rachel Reeves is in the Treasury.

 

Showing my ignorance again, but isn't this one of A: In the public domain or B: Open to freedom of information requests which you'd imagine the opposition would make if needed?

For me at least begging the question C: What exactly could the party in power hide in terms of income and expenditure from both the public and a determined opposition anyway? Is any of it subject to the official secrets act? Even if specific defence items were, surely the overall budget can't be?

 

2 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

The simple fact is that the Tories inherited an economy in recovery from the financial crisis and have completely trashed it thanks to austerity, Brexit, Covid and Trussonomics - and 3 of those were entirely self-inflicted.

 

Oh for sure, and we're collectively throwing them out on their arses because of it in a couple of weeks and well after we should have done.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm voting Labour because due to FPTP I can't do anything else where I am.

But (this time around) they haven't made much of a firm commitment to do anything at all yet that I can see. 

And if I had an actual choice I'd probably be voting Lib-Dem or Binface. For now though anything to dump the Tories.

I'm old enough that I voted Labour for Blair too, and I'm pretty unhappy with what happened there too re: illegal wars, so whilst I detest the tories as much as the next person, Labour don't get my vote by default.

[Toast 15,391]

2 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

The simple fact is that the Tories inherited an economy in recovery from the financial crisis and have completely trashed it thanks to austerity, Brexit, Covid and Trussonomics - and 3 of those were entirely self-inflicted.

 

And pocketed the rest.

[maryportfuncity 10,239]

Front pages tomorrow include speculation on which leading Tories are already underway with leadership bids - bit presumtuous given how vulnerable some of the leading contenders are to tactical voting. 

 

Either way, eyes off the ball with regard to the election.

[Brad252 561]

3 hours ago, Spade_Cooley said:

Shout out to Waveney Valley which, according to the latest MRP data, is set to become the first Green/Reform marginal in the country.

I remember in 2017 James Acaster joked about what a UKIP-Green coalition would be like, where he said "they're going to be planting lots of trees which from the air spell out "fuck off home!""

[RoverAndOut 4,073]

29 minutes ago, En Passant said:

So, basically the 'rain dance' option.

And if that doesn't happen. Tax rises or spending cuts, or both.

 

Well what else would you like him to do? And why on earth would he spell that out now? We all know the game. And we all know who's to blame.

 

30 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Showing my ignorance again, but isn't this one of A: In the public domain or B: Open to freedom of information requests which you'd imagine the opposition would make if needed?

For me at least begging the question C: What exactly could the party in power hide in terms of income and expenditure from both the public and a determined opposition anyway? Is any of it subject to the official secrets act? Even if specific defence items were, surely the overall budget can't be?

 

I'm no expert but there's a certain level of privacy to it, if not secrecy. Budgets are one thing, but what you spend that budget on is quite another, and until you get into office, how do you know what you'll keep and what you'll cut and how much money you'll have to play with? Labour will almost certainly be getting briefings in preparation for potential victory but how much detail they go into, I've no idea (obviously more than the press and Joe Public).

 

40 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm voting Labour because due to FPTP I can't do anything else where I am.

But (this time around) they haven't made much of a firm commitment to do anything at all yet that I can see. 

And if I had an actual choice I'd probably be voting Lib-Dem or Binface. For now though anything to dump the Tories.

I'm old enough that I voted Labour for Blair too, and I'm pretty unhappy with what happened there too re: illegal wars, so whilst I detest the tories as much as the next person, Labour don't get my vote by default.

 

The problem is there's no money to *do* anything. For the reasons already outlined. The only parties promising stuff won't have to deliver it. Reform's figures don't add up, the Greens make some bold assumptions, the Lib Dems might have some merit but they're focused on specific issues, not *everything*.

 

I'm not old enough to have voted for Blair, but I am old enough to have grown up in New Labour Britain, and it was a much nicer place to live in than the years since and, from what I've heard and seen, before. Iraq is a perfectly valid stick with which to beat them, but that overlooks a hell of a lot of good they did, particularly in the first term before the War on Terror began.

[En Passant 3,213]

6 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

Well what else would you like him to do?

 

Be a bit more honest about it? But yeah, I know, it's politics. Just a bit fed up of all that.

 

On the rest? Well, you're not really saying anything I don't know already mate.

I didn't honestly expect you (or anyone else) to, but thought I'd ask anyway. Was just your post I responded to.

 

Basically I was just throwing it out there such that we don't all leap on this Labour are going to fix it bandwagon and then become immediately (for monthly and yearly values of 'immediately' probably) disenchanted.

I've already said I'm voting for them, and not necessarily whilst holding my nose. But I'm not expecting miracles.

 

And no, the rest don't have to justify their bollox because they'll never have to do it.

 

I guess the bottom line is I'm cheesed off with being lied to, either explicitly or by omission. The pity is, it's done because far too many people have absolutely no fuckin clue and expect the good fairy to sort it all out. Hey ho.

[Bibliogryphon 9,073]

I'm surprised the tactical voting mob didn't call themselves the Campaign to Unseat Nasty Tories

[msc 18,042]

7 hours ago, En Passant said:

 

Be a bit more honest about it? But yeah, I know, it's politics. Just a bit fed up of all that.

 

I guess the bottom line is I'm cheesed off with being lied to, either explicitly or by omission. The pity is, it's done because far too many people have absolutely no fuckin clue and expect the good fairy to sort it all out. Hey ho.

 

Thing is, you know that, I know that we all know that and still... Labour have lost at least five elections in my parents lifetime because the Tories have convinced swing voters Labour will tax them. It's a precedent based on recent history that if they are at all honest before the election they don't get elected. I don't like it but I can understand it.

[En Passant 3,213]

37 minutes ago, msc said:

 

Thing is, you know that, I know that we all know that and still... Labour have lost at least five elections in my parents lifetime because the Tories have convinced swing voters Labour will tax them. It's a precedent based on recent history that if they are at all honest before the election they don't get elected. I don't like it but I can understand it.

 

 

I know its ridiculous, but I hate the fact it makes me look naive asking, and yet at the same time it's completely the opposite of naive, it's having been through it that many times and been fed the same sets of lies (or if not technically lies, omissions or obfuscations) time after time I'm anything but naive about it.

Nothing could be more serious and yet the closest to the truth is probably binface with a manifesto that could have been written by a 12 year old with a sense of humour. I'm tired of it and want a little rant about it. Sadly for anyone here, it's here that has happened. 

 

ETA: whilst ranting and TLDR: I remember trying in 2015/16 to find the facts about Brexit. It was almost impossible to find anything unbiased. The whole fucking thing was started by Cameron trying to reign in his own parties right wing and sod all to do with what was 'best for Britain', he just didn't think he could lose so it was a reasonable approach and anyway he cared about himself first, the tories second and the rest of us a distant 3rd.

All the battle buses with £350M a week for the NHS, and no more paying into the EU with OUR money, no more Johnny Foreigner walking in unfettered were just so much hot air. Nowhere could you find (or at least I couldn't) a sensible unbiased list of any 'pros and cons'. It was all either lies from politicians, or lies from biased news sources, or 'balanced' opinion from sources too afraid to say much either way. The most important decisions in our lives are based on lying, you'd think by now we could do better, but it seems too many of us are still children who just want an ice-cream they don't have to pay for and that's why it's always been this way and probably always will and you only have to watch one vox-pop to know it.

[YoungWillz 19,895]

The troubled seat of Aberdeenshire North and Moray loses its Labour candidate for pro-Russia posts: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-13545895/Reeves-pleased-Labour-candidate-suspended-pro-Russia-posts.html

 

Andy Brown will now stand as an independent. 

 

Probably of little matter as it is a straight fight between the Tories and SNP.

[msc 18,042]

8 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

The troubled seat of Aberdeenshire North and Moray loses its Labour candidate for pro-Russia posts: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-13545895/Reeves-pleased-Labour-candidate-suspended-pro-Russia-posts.html

 

Andy Brown will now stand as an independent. 

 

Probably of little matter as it is a straight fight between the Tories and SNP.

 

In a marginal, voters for a party which got 2k last time being told to vote for another anti-Tory party is probably not great news for Mr Douglas Ross. 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,434]

10 minutes ago, msc said:

 

In a marginal, voters for a party which got 2k last time being told to vote for another anti-Tory party is probably not great news for Mr Douglas Ross. 

Aside from the usual suspects. Seeing Ross and Holden lose on election night would be quite enjoyable 

[msc 18,042]

3 minutes ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Aside from the usual suspects. Seeing Ross and Holden lose on election night would be quite enjoyable 

Sounds like a TOTP act from 1988. "And up next with Totally Doomed, a new hit from Ross and Holden."

[The Old Crem 3,312]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

The troubled seat of Aberdeenshire North and Moray loses its Labour candidate for pro-Russia posts: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-13545895/Reeves-pleased-Labour-candidate-suspended-pro-Russia-posts.html

 

Andy Brown will now stand as an independent. 

 

Probably of little matter as it is a straight fight between the Tories and SNP.

Nominations have long since closed so it will still say Labour on the ballot paper.

[TQR 13,427]

Tom Tugend has once again thrown his hat into the ring for Tory leadership if (when) Sunak steps down after the election.

 

Of course, he has to win his own seat first. But if the Tories don't win Tonbridge, then frankly it's armageddon for them.

[Bibliogryphon 9,073]

Just has a leaflet pushed through the door from reform. The candidate looks like he is one conversation from his head exploding

 

If I had seen just his picture and asked which party do you think he is standing for it would definitely be Reform

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,434]

Immediately on the defensive