nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Letwin_Larry

from what i'm reading/hearing the crucial battleground in this election appears to be those marginal seats, and how in particular will Lab Leavers vote now that Nigel has "put his country before party" and allowed the Tories a clear run at them.

will those Lab leavers hold their noses & bring themselves to vote Tory?
will the decide to return to or stick with Lab?
will they stay at home in disgust/frustration, with a nice cuppa on a cold winter's day?
will the vote Lib Dem or possibly Green?
will they spoil their votes?

If these Lab Leavers "swing/defect" in sufficient numbers, then it's game, set & match to Boris imo.

Another imponderable imo is, will Nigel still do enough damage to the Tories in those constituencies in which they will continue to contest, or will Part 2 of their "agreement" kick in, and will Nigel stand down even more candidates to make way for the Tories?

Hmmmm?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe by not suggesting a party who didn't claim government for two periods of 16 and 13 years within the period of the last 55 years are an electoral machine.

Doesn't matter if a particular demographic vote for them, to call them a machine would imply relentless success broken only by a random shock event if at all.

The longest time that the Tories were in opposition since 1945 was from 1997 to 2010, 13 years.

There was no 16 year period.

And yes any analysis would show they are an electoral machine. They have won about 2 thirds of the elections since 1945. They have won 7 out of the last 10 general elections.

Bannasidhe

schmittel wrote: »

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to read these posts a bit more carefully before you take a poster to task:

I did read it carefully.
'In the middle' - sounds perfectly lovely but what does it mean?
Are the Lib-dems really in the middle or are they Tory-Lite as many suspect?
What are their policies?
Apart from ignore the referendum results how do they intend to govern?

hometruths

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did read it carefully.
'In the middle' - sounds perfectly lovely but what does it mean?
Are the Lib-dems really in the middle or are they Tory-Lite as many suspect?
What are their policies?
Apart from ignore the referendum results how do they intend to govern?

I read devnulls post that he would vote Lib Dem as the best of a bad bunch as it is the party that closest represents his opinions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this and would vote the same. I am not impressed by any of the leaders/parties in this election but if I had a vote, I would want my vote to be counted and since I can only vote for one of the options on the ballot paper it would be the Lib Dems.

It's not exactly radical, and I fail to see why it prompts such contempt.

Bannasidhe

schmittel wrote: »

I read devnulls post that he would vote Lib Dem as the best of a bad bunch as it is the party that closest represents his opinions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this and would vote the same. I am not impressed by any of the leaders/parties in this election but if I had a vote, I would want my vote to be counted and since I can only vote for one of the options on the ballot paper it would be the Lib Dems.

It's not exactly radical, and I fail to see why it prompts such contempt.

Contempt?
Hardly.

Exasperation at attacks that are long on opinions and short on actual substance yes. Guilty of that.
And by substance I mean take for example 'Labour are economically illiterate' - that is an opinion until such time as evidence is provided for how exactly they are 'illiterate'. Lets see some figures to back that up.
They are not so 'illiterate' that the Tories aren't heading in the same direction by stealth.

And I repeat - what is this 'centre'?
What policies are in the centre?

Not to mention the realpolitik that all constantly attacking (not constructively criticising) Labour does is help the Tories because there is no way the Lib-Dems are going to win a majority.

PeadarCo

Bannasidhe wrote:

I did read it carefully. 'In the middle' - sounds perfectly lovely but what does it mean? Are the Lib-dems really in the middle or are they Tory-Lite as many suspect? What are their policies? Apart from ignore the referendum results how do they intend to govern?

Is this not the issue for the UK. They have the worst set of leaders arguably in living memory. That Labour are trailing the Tories in any shape or form tells you all you need to know about how bad Corbyn has been as leader. Before you get into the whole media conspiracy against him. Remember the Tories have had a full scale civil war in public view. They have had multiple extensions of brexit talks. They have done a u turn on practically every promise they made in relation to Brexit from day 1. There are way too many to list. They have also lost multiple court cases, they've been in power for a long time(normally people get fed up with a party after a long period of time). The UK economically hasn't been doing great. You could go on they are just the highlights. However even with all this labour is still less popular than the Tories.

Corbyn worshipped by his followers is hated by everyone else. He pushes away middle of the road voters and anyone who doesn't subscribe to his world view. Remember 50% of 1 is still greater than a 100% of 0. So yes attracting this middle of the road voters will mean compromising on certain policies. But that's leadership and good governance full stop. The alternative is no Labour policy gets implemented.

Bannasidhe

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is this not the issue for the UK. They have the worst set of leaders arguably in living memory. That Labour are trailing the Tories in any shape or form tells you all you need to know about how bad Corbyn has been as leader. Before you get into the whole media conspiracy against him. Remember the Tories have had a full scale civil war in public view. They have had multiple extensions of brexit talks. They have done a u turn on practically every promise they made in relation to Brexit from day 1. There are way too many to list. They have also lost multiple court cases, they've been in power for a long time(normally people get fed up with a party after a long period of time). The UK economically hasn't been doing great. You could go on they are just the highlights. However even with all this labour is still less popular than the Tories.

Corbyn worshipped by his followers is hated by everyone else. He pushes away middle of the road voters and anyone who doesn't subscribe to his world view. Remember 50% of 1 is still greater than a 100% of 0. So yes attracting this middle of the road voters will mean compromising on certain policies. But that's leadership and good governance full stop. The alternative is no Labour policy gets implemented.

Yet, we heard all that in 2017 and Labour increased their share of the vote.

The centerist Milliband was hardly a roaring success as leader. His policies were middle of the road. Why did he take a hammering? He lost 26 seats.

2 years later Corbyn gained 30 seats.

Those are the facts.

Joe_ Public

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is this not the issue for the UK. They have the worst set of leaders arguably in living memory. That Labour are trailing the Tories in any shape or form tells you all you need to know about how bad Corbyn has been as leader. Before you get into the whole media conspiracy against him. Remember the Tories have had a full scale civil war in public view. They have had multiple extensions of brexit talks. They have done a u turn on practically every promise they made in relation to Brexit from day 1. There are way too many to list. They have also lost multiple court cases, they've been in power for a long time(normally people get fed up with a party after a long period of time). The UK economically hasn't been doing great. You could go on they are just the highlights. However even with all this labour is still less popular than the Tories.

Corbyn worshipped by his followers is hated by everyone else. He pushes away middle of the road voters and anyone who doesn't subscribe to his world view. Remember 50% of 1 is still greater than a 100% of 0. So yes attracting this middle of the road voters will mean compromising on certain policies. But that's leadership and good governance full stop. The alternative is no Labour policy gets implemented.

Would have been interesting to see how uk politics would have taken shape if the referendum had never happened. Brexit, whatever corbyns personal view of it, never did him any favours imo.

While i dont agree with all you say, its still fair enough comment. The line i would quibble most with is media conspiracy. That suggests something a bit oblique and hidden when we all know the bias against jeremy corbyn has been extremely open and direct and not just among the right wing gutter press either. I dont think that is just simply left wing whingeing to be honest, just straight up fact and a pretty daunting obstacle for any political leader to negotiate. Just my opinion anyway.

hometruths

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not to mention the realpolitik that all constantly attacking (not constructively criticising) Labour does is help the Tories because there is no way the Lib-Dems are going to win a majority.

It is perfectly reasonable to attack Labour and the Tories because you don't wish to see either of them in government.

If you're a Lib Dem supporter precisely because you don't like Labour AND the Tories so what if not voting for one helps the other? The only way FPTP will be change if more voters vote for the smaller parties.

The point I am trying to make, (and I think devnull was as well), is that the Labour party should be concentrating on winning elections by making itself more appealing to voters rather than trying to say to would LD voters please don't vote the way you want to, because you are just helping the Tories.

And in answer to your question re Lib Dem policy I personally would vote for them because they have a clear remain stance on Brexit.

I am clear that Labour will hold a second referendum on Brexit, but I still do not know which way a Labour government policy would lean on Brexit. That is reason enough for me to vote Lib Dem.

This constructive criticism of Labour policy, not an attack.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not a member of the Labour Party.
I left when Kinnock began to drive the socialists away. I am completely up front about that.
I left the LP (and the UK) before some of the people here commenting on the LP were even born so I can hardly be described as a supporter of momentum.

I also have zero skin in the game. It make no difference to my life who wins.

But I would be interested to read a post from you that isn't an attack on the British LP. Perhaps you would tell us who you would vote for and why?

All these attacks on Labour by the Tories and the Lib-Dems makes me ponder why are they so frit.

So you remember the days of times power cuts because the coal miners were on strike (again) and there wasn’t enough coal to fuel the power stations?

Or the days when it took at least three people to fit a phone line, because job demarcation meant a guy could either drill a hole in the wall, or connect a few cables, but not both?

I do and that is why, like a lot of people it would seem, I have rejected the 1970s style socialism.

PeadarCo

Bannasidhe wrote:

Yet, we heard all that in 2017 and Labour increased their share of the vote.

Bannasidhe wrote:

Those are the facts.

And the facts are Corbyn is still more unpopular than the Tories despite all that's been happened. Look at what's happened since. Look at the highlights that I've listed. And remember after all that Corbyn is still less popular. Look at the all the u turns made by Johnson alone in the last 2 months.

Any competent leader should wipe the floor with the Tories. Any competent leader would be prepared to compromise their ideals to ensure they get some of their policies through rather than none.

Bannasidhe

Aegir wrote: »

So you remember the days of times power cuts because the coal miners were on strike (again) and there wasn’t enough coal to fuel the power stations?

Or the days when it took at least three people to fit a phone line, because job demarcation meant a guy could either drill a hole in the wall, or connect a few cables, but not both?

I do and that is why, like a lot of people it would seem, I have rejected the 1970s style socialism.

No.
But I remember my parents queuing for petrol, and electricity strikes etc etc.
That was in Ireland.
Can't blame the British Labour Party for the 70s being fairly universally crap everywhere.

I do remember collecting food for the miners when Thatcher wrecked havoc on the economies of the North. They have never recovered.
I do remember the riots in Wapping as Thatcher aided Murdoch in breaking the Printworkers before moving on the other unions. Now the gig economy has created the working poor.
I do remember Rate Capping.
I do remember the Poll Tax.

No one is advocating 1970s style socialism but some seem to favour 80s style trickle down economics. But, of course, it never does trickle down.

Tory policies haven't worked. Even the CP has tacitly acknowledged this by stealthily adopting LP policies from 2 years ago. Are you suggesting the Tories are going 1970s socialist?
Or could it be that austerity hasn't worked?
It hasn't 'saved' the economy.
It has severely damaged whole sections of UK society.
Health and education are in crises.

And the bloody (expensive to use privatised) trains don't always even run never mind being on time.

This is not the 1970s. It is the dawn of the 2020s and to keep repeating the policies of neo-liberalism in place since the late 70s is to keep repeating the same failed experiment.

I see nothing wrong with a new kind of socialism. The Scandinavians have proven it can be done.

Bannasidhe

PeadarCo wrote: »

And the facts are Corbyn is still more unpopular than the Tories despite all that's been happened. Look at what's happened since. Look at the highlights that I've listed. And remember after all that Corbyn is still less popular. Look at the all the u turns made by Johnson alone in the last 2 months.

Any competent leader should wipe the floor with the Tories. Any competent leader would be prepared to compromise their ideals to ensure they get some of their policies through rather than none.

You claimed with a more centerist leader Labour would wipe the floor with the Tories.

The moderate, centerist, Milliband lost 26 seats to the Tories 4 years ago.
2 years ago Corbyn gained 30 seats from the Tories.

Now I don't know what the election results will be but for now the facts as evidenced by the last GE do not support your hypothesis.

Leroy42

Gained 30 seats against a party with a disaster of a manifesto, that had just lost its leader and chancellor, PM was terrible at elections.

Labour should have walked it yet somehow managed to loose. But they can't even loose properly, because to them it was a win.

markodaly

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Labour is not planning or proposing to nationalise BT, merely its broadband supply network Openreach, which technically is not even owned by BT anyway. With the government spinning away like mad, the level of disinformation swallowed whole by a gullible public is alarming. Communism gone out of control, wouldn't you know. There are lots of nationalised industries, including in telecoms sector, across the EU, so people need to do better homework instead of dismissing it immediately out of hand.

Hmmm, I see what you did there.

Present a fact, as if it was the whole truth, then go down the 'everyone who dissagres with these facts is a Tory' or something.

However, you only presented a part of the actual truth of the matter in relation to British Broadband.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/15/labour_pledges_free_broadband_via_partnationalisation_of_bt/

Under the move, Labour has said it will integrate the broadband-relevant parts of the London-listed company into a new public entity, British Broadband.

That includes its broadband division Openreach, parts of BT Technology, which oversees the backhaul network, BT Enterprise, which retails broadband to business, and BT Consumer, which flogs broadband to individuals.

As to why this is not a good move overall.

However, Matthew Howett, analyst and founder of Assembly, also said such a move would be extremely difficult to deliver.

"This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.

"The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.

"Only one other country in the world has come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention."

The left leaning Guardian also remains skeptical.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/15/how-feasible-is-labour-free-broadband-plan-and-part-nationalisation-of-bt

Australia has tried to do this with its National Broadband Network and it has been branded one of the biggest infrastructure failures in its history. Set up in 2006, the government’s plan was to roll out full fibre to 93% of all premises, although over the years this was watered down to a “multi-technology mix” using different technologies offering varying levels of speed and service to consumers

As to my original question of state aid rules.

There is no EU prohibition of publicly-owned industry. Indeed there are over 800 companies in the EU that are fully or partly nationalised. The key to whether a state intervention is legal under state aid rules is how the industry is run rather than the status of the owner. And in the field of broadband the European commission – the EU’s executive arm – has a permissive policy.

EU guidance published in 2013 on the issue of broadband rollout warned that “state intervention should limit as much as possible the risk of crowding out private investments, of altering commercial investment incentives and ultimately of distorting competition contrary to the common interest of the European Union”.

But the guidance suggested that a significant degree of market distortion would be acceptable if the government’s intervention would “result in a higher level, or a faster rate of broadband coverage and penetration than would be the case without state aid”.

Labour’s proposal would need to demonstrate, for example, “that private investors are not in a position to provide in the near future adequate broadband coverage to all citizens or users, thus leaving a significant part of the population unconnected”

Free Broadband offered by a newly nationalised BT/Openreach would surely come floundering under this rule, which brings me back to my quesiton.
Are Corbyn and Labour giving up the ghost of being in the EU anymore as their British Broadband plan certainly gives that impression.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would this be the same Labour who under Clement Atlee implemented a great deal of socialist policies like nationalising vital industries and bringing in the free at point of access NHS (which everyone agrees was a good thing - even the Tories who are intent on selling it off)?

Or the Conservatives who under Bonar Law deliberately stoked up Unionist sectarian sentiment in Ireland?

Hmmm... a socialist Labour Party and a fear mongering Conservative Party... seems to me both are merely going back to their roots.

I know you harp back to the days of a Socialist Labour, but that ship has sailed.
People who get teary eyed at Atlee's 1945 Labour Government are as much removed from realtiy as those Tories who want to being the UK back to their teary eyed version of 1950's Britain.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet, we heard all that in 2017 and Labour increased their share of the vote.

The centerist Milliband was hardly a roaring success as leader. His policies were middle of the road. Why did he take a hammering? He lost 26 seats.

2 years later Corbyn gained 30 seats.

Those are the facts.

Milliband took a hammering because Cameron was a better 'centrist' then him.

Dare I say it, if Milliband was at the helm now, Labour would be doing a lot better than him.

The last time a 'Socialist' Labour leader won a Westminister election was 1974.
Corbyn did well last time out because people had so low expectations of him. In the intermeaning two and a half years, people have gotten to know him a bit better and looking at the polls they are not impressed.

I would be shocked if Labour get a majority in this election.

liamtech

SNIP. No insults please.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No one is advocating 1970s style socialism.

Corbyns Labour certainly are. Banning private schools, renationalising a whole host of sectors...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with a new kind of socialism. The Scandinavians have proven it can be done.

That is social democarcy, not socialism.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No.
But I remember my parents queuing for petrol, and electricity strikes etc etc.
That was in Ireland.
Can't blame the British Labour Party for the 70s being fairly universally crap everywhere.

I do remember collecting food for the miners when Thatcher wrecked havoc on the economies of the North. They have never recovered.
I do remember the riots in Wapping as Thatcher aided Murdoch in breaking the Printworkers before moving on the other unions. Now the gig economy has created the working poor.
I do remember Rate Capping.
I do remember the Poll Tax.

No one is advocating 1970s style socialism but some seem to favour 80s style trickle down economics. But, of course, it never does trickle down.

Tory policies haven't worked. Even the CP has tacitly acknowledged this by stealthily adopting LP policies from 2 years ago. Are you suggesting the Tories are going 1970s socialist?
Or could it be that austerity hasn't worked?
It hasn't 'saved' the economy.
It has severely damaged whole sections of UK society.
Health and education are in crises.

And the bloody (expensive to use privatised) trains don't always even run never mind being on time.

This is not the 1970s. It is the dawn of the 2020s and to keep repeating the policies of neo-liberalism in place since the late 70s is to keep repeating the same failed experiment.

I see nothing wrong with a new kind of socialism. The Scandinavians have proven it can be done.

I see nothing wrong with certain types of socialism either. However, are you suggesting that Corbyn's policies are the equivalent to 'Scandinavian socialism'? If so, can you show the similarities?

Joe_ Public

markodaly wrote: »

Hmmm, I see what you did there.

Present a fact, as if it was the whole truth, then go down the 'everyone who dissagres with these facts is a Tory' or something.

However, you only presented a part of the actual truth of the matter in relation to British Broadband.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/15/labour_pledges_free_broadband_via_partnationalisation_of_bt/

As to why this is not a good move overall.

The left leaning Guardian also remains skeptical.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/15/how-feasible-is-labour-free-broadband-plan-and-part-nationalisation-of-bt

As to my original question of state aid rules.

Free Broadband offered by a newly nationalised BT/Openreach would surely come floundering under this rule, which brings me back to my quesiton.
Are Corbyn and Labour giving up the ghost of being in the EU anymore as their British Broadband plan certainly gives that impression.

To be fair, i merely pointed out that labour was not proposing to nationalise bt. I keep hearing conservative politicians fail to make this distinction when criticising the policy which i just personally find disingenuous.

I certainly confess to being no expert on business or eu competition law, so opinion against it is not something i would dismiss lightly. I would merely note the report i read in the Irish times the other day about Ireland getting the green light to go ahead with its broadband roll out which would, to me anyway, suggest the labour plan is feasible at least. But like i said, I'm not an expert so who knows really? Maybe it is really is a dastardly ploy by corbyn and his acolytes to usher in whatever form of brexit they're after.

liamtech

Bannasidhe

Just wanted to acknowledge that you were correct when you said that the Tory's would naturally push for this Election to be solely about Brexit

https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-boris-johnson-challenges-jeremy-corbyn-ahead-of-first-tv-debate-11864488

So i know i criticized Corbyn a lot over electioneering but for what its worth i hope i was wrong, and he does score good tomorrow.

the NHS being in poor state after 10 years of Tory Rule
and the obvious nature of Boris's Politics (attacking protesters as 'old crusties')

Genuinely hope we see a surge for Labor, a surge for ANYONE aside from the Tory's would be good

Apologies for any confusion, thats all i was trying to say:o

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I know you harp back to the days of a Socialist Labour, but that ship has sailed.
People who get teary eyed at Atlee's 1945 Labour Government are as much removed from realtiy as those Tories who want to being the UK back to their teary eyed version of 1950's Britain.

Harping back by pointing out that having a socialist as leader is not the 'extreme' for the LP you wish to claim it is?

Not at all teary eyed about Atlee - I do absolutely state that a National Health Service from cradle to grave free at point of access is in my opinion a damn good idea and I wish some Irish government had had the wit and courage to create something similar.

You are free to disagree and argue in favour of a US style health service or the current hodge podge of public waiting to get a coveted trolley or private.

Bannasidhe

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with certain types of socialism either. However, are you suggesting that Corbyn's policies are the equivalent to 'Scandinavian socialism'? If so, can you show the similarities?

No.

I am saying that socialism takes many forms and those 'harping' (to use another poster's phrase) back to the 1970s are the ones who seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

Policies that Corbyn is advocating are found across Europe - not just in Scandinavia. It is only in the UK (and Ireland) that he would be considered in anyway 'extreme' with our shared fear of socialism. Which is frankly bizarre in Ireland as we have never had a socialist government but have had many many economic woes.

For example: in France you can get your electricity from a state owned supplier, Hamburg in Germany is in the process of doing the same; In Switzerland the trains are owned by a corporation and all of the shares in this corporation are owned by the cantons, in Germany the state owned Deutsche Bahn would have British rails user weeps with envy, ditto if they heard the same applies in Italy; also in Germany you can bank in one of the hundreds of local government owned savings banks.

Free education is found in many European countries.
As is free childcare.

A Dub in Glasgo

Tory candidate dropped because of comments made in previous blogs (anti-semitism)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-50468770

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Harping back by pointing out that having a socialist as leader is not the 'extreme' for the LP you wish to claim it is?
.
.
.
You are free to disagree and argue in favour of a US style health service or the current hodge podge of public waiting to get a coveted trolley or private.

See what you did there? Created a strawman as some type of rebuttal.

I neither mentioned free markets, health service privatisation or a US-style health service, nevermind advocated support for them. Yet, it seems, if one is so inclined to be against the extreme policies adopted by Corybn, then one must advocate for the affirmative for the Tories or their ilk.

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, it seems, if one is so inclined to be against the extreme policies adopted by Corybn, then one must advocate for the affirmative for the Tories or their ilk.

Well, yes, in the UK if you don't have a Labour led Government (with what you call extreme policies), you get a Tory led Government with the austerity and tax cuts and privatization and hostility to foreigners. That's the FPTP system.

You can vote LibDem and hope to drag the next Government into the center, but what did the LDs get from the Tories in the last coalition? A plastic bag tax?

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

See what you did there? Created a strawman as some type of rebuttal.

I neither mentioned free markets, health service privatisation or a US-style health service, nevermind advocated support for them. Yet, it seems, if one is so inclined to be against the extreme policies adopted by Corybn, then one must advocate for the affirmative for the Tories or their ilk.

You mentioned Atlee and his post war govt - I respond by referencing Atlee's big idea and I'm strawmanning?

You have utterly failed to demonstrate in any way, shape, or form how exactly Corbyn is 'extreme' in the context of being leader of the LP.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate how the policies he is advocating are 'extreme' in a contemporary European context.

I also stated that Johnson is not 'extreme' in the context of past policies of the Tories. I note your lack of quibbling with that.

I think you are clutching at straws. You made a blanket statement throwing around that word 'extreme'. You got called on it.

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not at all teary eyed about Atlee - I do absolutely state that a National Health Service from cradle to grave free at point of access is in my opinion a damn good idea and I wish some Irish government had had the wit and courage to create something similar.

Yes, the best way to create a service that is overused and abused and costing far more than it should.

The NHS, on paper, sounds delicious. But in reality, it's a bureaucratic waste of money and weighed down by inefficiency and loss of productivity.

There are far better, more economically efficient and more productive ways for a society to manage healthcare.

The NHS is one the worst ways to manage healthcare - period.

markodaly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, yes, in the UK if you don't have a Labour led Government (with what you call extreme policies), you get a Tory led Government with the austerity and tax cuts and privatization and hostility to foreigners. That's the FPTP system.

You can vote LibDem and hope to drag the next Government into the center, but what did the LDs get from the Tories in the last coalition? A plastic bag tax?

So, as Devnull stated correctly if you are not for a Corbyn election win, you are therefore for a Tory election win.
That is the level of debate we have.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mentioned Atlee and his post war govt - I respond by referencing Atlee's big idea and I'm strawmanning?

You have utterly failed to demonstrate in any way, shape, or form how exactly Corbyn is 'extreme' in the context of being leader of the LP.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate how the policies he is advocating are 'extreme' in a contemporary European context.

I also stated that Johnson is not 'extreme' in the context of past policies of the Tories. I note your lack of quibbling with that.

I think you are clutching at straws. You made a blanket statement throwing around that word 'extreme'. You got called on it.

Just wanna make clear my own view. Im in favor of many of Corbyn's policies, and i acknowledge that he is a proper socialist - as opposed to a Blairite 'New Labour' Champagne socialist that came before

My main criticism of Corbyn is that i believe, given the circumstances, it is wrong to attempt to reform Brexit - it ought be stopped, and i believe Labour would do better if that was their Brexit Policy. I dont favor any argument which would seek to sanitize Brexit, turning it into a positive. I understand that there would be a vote after Corbyn's renegotiation, but i believe the renegotiation tacitly endorses the view that Brexit can be good for Britain. My own view is that Brexit cannot, in any form, be good for UKGBNI

I await tonight's debate and i really hope Corbyn scores big against Bojo