General Election Is On

[Paul Waine]

To Paul Waine. Hi Paul, you seem to be a reasonably-minded Conservative supporter, so I would like to get your thoughts on the question I posed yesterday. You have been critical of the Labour Party's radical policies for dealing with the chronic problems of underfunding of public services with all the attendant issues of poverty and deprivation. But if you don't want to follow Labour's proposed measures, what alternative solution would you suggest? Surely we can't allow the underfunding of education, the NHS, care for the elderly etc to continue can we?

Hi Erasmus, I nearly missed your new post - and I'm still thinking about how to sort out "social care." I hesitate to claim the label "reasonably-minded Conservative supporter...." Have you missed some of my "bursting the Westminster bubble/re-connect MPs with the electorate" posts? (And, abolish HoL and get rid of all "sirs," "lords" and the rest. My views on the tax treatment of pensions are not aligned with the last years, either. Thinking about it, my views on pensions aren't aligned with the last 30+ years. But, you are right, if the choice is Corbyn and his socialism, yes, I'm definitely not that.

Quick comments on NHS - and I've stated my views a number of times. You may find something earlier on this thread (or the Brexit one). UK should adopt the same model as Netherlands - where I lived for a while (similar health service arrangements are used in other major EU countries). It's a shame that the EU didn't mandate that all national health services should be the same model as Netherlands.

[dsr]

There have been a few mentions of education underfunding on this thread - but is education really underfunded? Would the schools claim they were underfunded whatever the funds they receive, because they can never have enough money because they can always think oif something else that would be a good thing?

For example, they claimed schools were underfunded when I was at school. Lord Street Juniors had 240 pupils, 8 full time teachers, and a headmaster. They could afford pencils and paper, but you couldn't get a new pencil without handing in the old one worn down to half a stub. They couldn't afford to move the toilets indoors.

Now, a school I know of has 120 pupils but 11 full time staff to teach them and run the school. Half the pupils, but more staff. Where is the funding coming from? How many staff does a class of 30 need? (Lord Street, incidentally, has managed to build inside toilets. Good.)

[If it be your will]

The national rail company there is state owned, so I’d imagine the government provides it with money to pay for its upkeep in the absence of fares. State aid.

Okay, you forced me to look it up. All cross border rail is operated by various European railway companies and is subject to competition. This leaves 275km of commuter lines over 7 branch lines (i.e. substantially smaller than London underground). The operator, CFL is listed as a 'Government owned corporation', not exclusively owned by the Luxembourg state. They decided that the cost of collecting fares was revenue neutral, so plan to abandon them.

Do you still, honestly, believe EU rules don't forbid a fully integrated state-owned monopoly railway in the UK? If not, why do you pretend otherwise? If yes, then, well, just "why?", I suppose. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... way-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/po ... 77781.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Polls...

[tiger76]

Prepare for more of these announcements https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50536205

£31bn alone is the market value of National Grid.

Mind-blowing figures that Labour would need to find to bring these private companies into public ownership,is it any wonder their spending commitments are raising eyebrows.

[AndrewJB]

Okay, you forced me to look it up. All cross border rail is operated by various European railway companies and is subject to competition. This leaves 275km of commuter lines over 7 branch lines (i.e. substantially smaller than London underground). The operator, CFL is listed as a 'Government owned corporation', not exclusively owned by the Luxembourg state. They decided that the cost of collecting fares was revenue neutral, so plan to abandon them.

Do you still, honestly, believe EU rules don't forbid a fully integrated state-owned monopoly railway in the UK? If not, why do you pretend otherwise? If yes, then, well, just "why?", I suppose. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... way-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The government vernment of Luxembourg own ninety something percent of CFL, the Belgian and French governments owning the rest. With it being the EU, the same rules will apply as with a publicly owned U.K. rail, which presumably could be run as a public service should we wish - free at point of use and paid for out of taxation.

[tiger76]

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/po ... 77781.html
Polls...

What relevance does 2017 have to this current election,Corbyn you could argue was in a honeymoon period then,and Theresa May run a terrible campaign.

[Devils_Advocate]

Truth slayer

[dsr]

Prepare for more of these announcements https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50536205

£31bn alone is the market value of National Grid.

Mind-blowing figures that Labour would need to find to bring these private companies into public ownership,is it any wonder their spending commitments are raising eyebrows.

What I don't see is how they are going to pay for it. They are buying at zero cost, apparently, because the value of the assets will be matched by the value of the borrowings. But that dubious logical reasoning only works if they are going to make sure the company keeps that value, by way of making profits and continuing to pay dividends.

So the purpose of electric company nationalisation is to:

1. Help consumers.
2. Improve the pay and conditions of people working for electric companies.
3. Drive the companies' motives away from profit and into "green" technologies.
4. Carry on making profits as they do now.

All laudable ambitions - but not possible to do them all at once.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

There have been a few mentions of education underfunding on this thread - but is education really underfunded? Would the schools claim they were underfunded whatever the funds they receive, because they can never have enough money because they can always think oif something else that would be a good thing?

For example, they claimed schools were underfunded when I was at school. Lord Street Juniors had 240 pupils, 8 full time teachers, and a headmaster. They could afford pencils and paper, but you couldn't get a new pencil without handing in the old one worn down to half a stub. They couldn't afford to move the toilets indoors.

Now, a school I know of has 120 pupils but 11 full time staff to teach them and run the school. Half the pupils, but more staff. Where is the funding coming from? How many staff does a class of 30 need? (Lord Street, incidentally, has managed to build inside toilets. Good.)

Everything is rosey.

[Pstotto]

Nicola Sturgeon has just been saying she is not prepared to press a button of mass destruction, in that case she is not fit for purpose as a leader.

[tiger76]

Nicola Sturgeon has just been saying she is not prepared to press a button of mass destruction, in that case she is not fit for purpose as a leader.

I assume you're referring to Trident,well the reality is that defence remains the preserve of Westminster,so in the unlikely event of a minority Labour government,Corbyn would have a difficult decision to make,as Sturgeon has stated that Trident removal is one of her red lines,however Labour's manifesto has pledged to renew Trident.

She's doing a fantastic job in shoring up the Conservative vote in Scotland,everytime she mentions independence that's a gifthorse to their campaign north of the border.

I was considering spoiling my ballot,but am now likely to vote blue,mainly due to this women's obsession with independence.

Get on with running the country Nicola,and BTW she shouldn't be taking part in TV debates for Westminster elections,remind me again what constituency she's running in,i can't seem to find her candidancy.

And just TBF Nigel Farage shouldn't be getting so much airtime either,if the SNP and BP want to put camdidates forward for interviews/debates fine,but they should be running for the office of MP.

[Lowbankclaret]

A concise explanation on nationalising the railways.

It appears we would have to argue on the level of nationalisation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 68691.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An article that’s bit deeper but more general.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-anal ... ct-checked" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The upshot of doing some more reading is that a level of nationalisation could be achieved.

So like most things the devil will be in the detail.

I did take Labour’s plans to be full nationalisation but perhaps that’s not the plan.

[Devils_Advocate]

Apology accepted

[Clarets4me]

How's the canvassing going, Lowbank ? Ran into one of the Hapton with Park Councillors in Padiham today, he seemed encouraged by his feedback, not quite to the point of thinking the Brexit party will take the seat, though !

[Lowbankclaret]

Another article that’s arguing that partial Nationalisation could be possible whilst quoting people who are arguing its more difficult.

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-c ... st-eu-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conclusion I draw is that complete nationalisation is not possible.
Partial can be with agreement of the EU commission, but even then it could be challenged in court by private companies which could add complexity and cost.

[Devils_Advocate]

The country is falling apart at the seams and needs some drastic action and ideas to try and pull it back together. The Tory's solution seems to be to not put your head above the parapet and just chant "get Brexit done" from the sidelines.

Cowards and charlatans

[Lowbankclaret]

How's the canvassing going, Lowbank ? Ran into one of the Hapton with Park Councillors in Padiham today, he seemed encouraged by his feedback, not quite to the point of thinking the Brexit party will take the seat, though !

As far as I know none of the councillors have joined in the canvassing so far.

The biggest group are the undecided, some people are really struggling to decide.

Tory voters who don’t want Julie to get back in, but are unsure Brexit party can get enough votes to beat her.

The Labour vote appears to have collapsed. That statement could get me some stick after the election. But that’s what we are seeing.

If the bulk of the undecided go Tory I think he will win.

If they go Brexit party, Stewart will.

Still getting a lot of solid yes will vote Brexit Party.

I am told Julie will get a solid 5000 votes from the Asian community, but else where people appear really angry towards her.

[AndrewJB]

What relevance does 2017 have to this current election,Corbyn you could argue was in a honeymoon period then,and Theresa May run a terrible campaign.

That was the last poll before the election - predicting a comfortable Tory majority.

[Elizabeth]

Firstly Lowbank , i question your assertion that the Asian community will get the Labour candidate a solid 5000. You don't say where you get this from , I know many Asians who want Brexit because they worry about the type of EU Nationals coming into this country , they plan to vote Tory. Yes, I think there will be uneducated sections of the Asian community who will most likely vote Labour, but 5000?
I am happy that the Brexit Party are standing in Burnley because they will take thousands of Labour voters.
I don't think that this will be enough to get anywhere near taking the seat for Brexit, but with what I am sure will be a very good turn out of voters voting Tory this hopefully be enough to help get rid of an MP who has put party loyalty before the interest of the 66% of her constituents who knew what for, and why they were voting in 2016 ie to leave the EU

[tiger76]

That was the last poll before the election - predicting a comfortable Tory majority.

Fair enough i actually thought the polls narrowed after the manifesto's launched,and the Tories bombed and Labour's get a surprisingly positive reception,on paper it looks like the Conservatives are heading to a good majority,but the electorate is volatile ATM,and we'll have to wait and see what impact the wafer-thin Conservative manifesto has on public opinion.

Turnout will also be crucial to this election.IF Labour can enthuse the youth vote and get them engaged,then that could swing several marginal seats in their direction.

[Elizabeth]

Andy - why no latest polls showing the big swing to the Conservatives in Scotland?
Reading the latest expert opinion , while this will not get the Conservatives any more seats in Scotland, if it continues , it will more than likely mean that they only lose the odd seat. As opposed to the previously held belief that the SNP would get the overwhelming success they got in 2015 and take nearly all the seats.
More good news for Boris

[Elizabeth]

That wasn't a wafer thin manifesto that the nation witnessed this afternoon tiger

[Clarets4me]

Firstly Lowbank , i question your assertion that the Asian community will get the Labour candidate a solid 5000. You don't say where you get this from , I know many Asians who want Brexit because they worry about the type of EU Nationals coming into this country , they plan to vote Tory. Yes, I think there will be uneducated sections of the Asian community who will most likely vote Labour, but 5000?
I am happy that the Brexit Party are standing in Burnley because they will take thousands of Labour voters.
I don't think that this will be enough to get anywhere near taking the seat for Brexit, but with what I am sure will be a very good turn out of voters voting Tory this hopefully be enough to help get rid of an MP who has put party loyalty before the interest of the 66% of her constituents who knew what for, and why they were voting in 2016 ie to leave the EU

I rather think that if you offered any of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or the Brexit Party 35% of the vote share in Burnley, they'd have your hand off !!

[Lowbankclaret]

Firstly Lowbank , i question your assertion that the Asian community will get the Labour candidate a solid 5000. You don't say where you get this from , I know many Asians who want Brexit because they worry about the type of EU Nationals coming into this country , they plan to vote Tory. Yes, I think there will be uneducated sections of the Asian community who will most likely vote Labour, but 5000?
I am happy that the Brexit Party are standing in Burnley because they will take thousands of Labour voters.
I don't think that this will be enough to get anywhere near taking the seat for Brexit, but with what I am sure will be a very good turn out of voters voting Tory this hopefully be enough to help get rid of an MP who has put party loyalty before the interest of the 66% of her constituents who knew what for, and why they were voting in 2016 ie to leave the EU

Please feel free to question it.

It’s just what the experienced campaigners are telling me.

I have no evidence to back it up.

She did 18,000 votes from somewhere.

[Lowbankclaret]

Firstly Lowbank , i question your assertion that the Asian community will get the Labour candidate a solid 5000. You don't say where you get this from , I know many Asians who want Brexit because they worry about the type of EU Nationals coming into this country , they plan to vote Tory. Yes, I think there will be uneducated sections of the Asian community who will most likely vote Labour, but 5000?
I am happy that the Brexit Party are standing in Burnley because they will take thousands of Labour voters.
I don't think that this will be enough to get anywhere near taking the seat for Brexit, but with what I am sure will be a very good turn out of voters voting Tory this hopefully be enough to help get rid of an MP who has put party loyalty before the interest of the 66% of her constituents who knew what for, and why they were voting in 2016 ie to leave the EU

Also if your correct about them voting Tory.

It’s likely Burnley will return a Tory MP for the first time since 1910.

[Elizabeth]

That was in 2017 Lowbank and I am happy for someone to publish the % of that 18000 were from the Asian community.
There has been so much advancement in education and integration over the years that personally I think many more people are capable of thinking for themselves in 2019 than years ago.

[Elizabeth]

I obviously don't know how many Asians will vote Tory but I just want to point out that it may not be correct to equate this particular community with blanket votes for the Labour Party

[Spijed]

Yesterday we had a poll with the Tories leading by 19 points, yet this one has Labour gaining ground.

Has anyone got a clue?

Britain Elects
‏

@britainelects
3h3 hours ago
More
Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (-1)
LAB: 30% (+2)
LDEM: 15% (+1)
BREX: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (-)

via @Survation, 20 - 23 Nov
Chgs. w/ 16 Nov

[If it be your will]

The government vernment of Luxembourg own ninety something percent of CFL, the Belgian and French governments owning the rest. With it being the EU, the same rules will apply as with a publicly owned U.K. rail, which presumably could be run as a public service should we wish - free at point of use and paid for out of taxation.

So just to ask the question again (so as to put your answer completely beyond doubt) you honestly believe the 4th Railway Package - and for that matter article 107 of Lisbon - would not prevent us renationalising the entire railway system, put it under monopoly state ownership, subsidise it, and all without a competitive tendering process needing to take place?

[Lowbankclaret]

That was in 2017 Lowbank and I am happy for someone to publish the % of that 18000 were from the Asian community.
There has been so much advancement in education and integration over the years that personally I think many more people are capable of thinking for themselves in 2019 than years ago.

As it’s a secret vote, no one will know.

[Erasmus]

Thanks, Paul. We discussed NHS funding before. Of course, the major difference between the British and Dutch healthcare systems is that their government pays a considerable amount more per head of population than does ours. If you include that level of increased funding then I am with you all the way.

And I think the fact that you can't suggest solutions to the crises with education, destitution, care for the elderly etc explains why I will vote Labour. Johnson and his party are just offering more of the same and that is really, really unacceptable. Over a million people have had to use food banks, schools are unable to offer full-time education and the elderly are being deprived of proper care. The worst of all was the six weeks wait for universal credit, which was so cruel and heartless it beggars belief. I do think you are reasonable person, but I can't see how you can support the people who inflicted such suffering on others.

[Elizabeth]

Google 'Brexit polls' and fill your boots
I did this morning and from memory the Labour Party do get as close as 7/8 % in one of the national polls. The vast majority though give the Conservatives major leads.
These were taken after the Labour manifesto was published and before the Conservative manifesto today.
The next weekly published polls will tell us which of the manifestos have had the most positive effect with the public.
I don't know whether to take Swinson and the Lib Dems serious after their game plan has bombed

[If it be your will]

Another article that’s arguing that partial Nationalisation could be possible whilst quoting people who are arguing its more difficult.

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-c ... st-eu-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conclusion I draw is that complete nationalisation is not possible.
Partial can be with agreement of the EU commission, but even then it could be challenged in court by private companies which could add complexity and cost.

Whenever people insist "Nationalisation is not against EU Law", as does this headline, I always equate it to that 350 million bus thing: technically it's correct. Just grossly misleading.

[AndrewJB]

The country is falling apart at the seams and needs some drastic action and ideas to try and pull it back together. The Tory's solution seems to be to not put your head above the parapet and just chant "get Brexit done" from the sidelines.

Cowards and charlatans

Have they costed their “no tax rises but generous spending” plans?

[Lowbankclaret]

I have just read the Labour manifesto again and on the railways I don’t think they can deliver what’s in the manifesto after reading many different articles today.

[If it be your will]

I have just read the Labour manifesto again and on the railways I don’t think they can deliver what’s in the manifesto after reading many different articles today.

I've only just read it. They've actually given themselves a lot of wiggle room in their manifesto, saying things like "...bringing our railways back into public ownership" and "...rebuild the fragmented railways as a nationally integrated public service". The message Labour want us to hear is "We will entirely renationalise the whole railway and run it as a monopoly" but don't actually say so in their manifesto, because this would obviously flout EU rules.

It's a bit like their 2017 Brexit stance. Back then you could hardly move for Labour politicians absolutely, totally, unequivocally saying we will definitely leave the EU, but are now able to point to their watery Brexit entry in their 2017 manifesto and say "All we strictly promised was to avoid no-deal".

It's all very irritating.

[Caballo]

Have they costed their “no tax rises but generous spending” plans?

Is there any point? They'll just make the imaginary numbers fit like the other two.

[Lowbankclaret]

Yep your correct, they promise something in a way that’s not quite official to get votes.

Then do something different and claim they never said it.

Currently they are offering everyone all the free sweets in the sweet shop.

And the biggest bonus, no one will have pay for it.

Well apart from a few rich tw4ts who can afford it.

[tiger76]

Andy - why no latest polls showing the big swing to the Conservatives in Scotland?
Reading the latest expert opinion , while this will not get the Conservatives any more seats in Scotland, if it continues , it will more than likely mean that they only lose the odd seat. As opposed to the previously held belief that the SNP would get the overwhelming success they got in 2015 and take nearly all the seats.
More good news for Boris

The online chat that i've seen regarding Scotland is that the SNP are slightly up on 2017,the Conservatives holding steady,and Labour fading,the Lib Dems are slightly up as well,but Jo Swinson will require some tactical pro-unionist votes to fight off a strong SNP challenge.

This might explain her visit to home turf in recent days,regarding the Conservatives if they have a really good night,they could even pick up some notable SNP scalps,Pete Wishart in Perth and North Perthshire is their top target,his majority is a mere 21,hence why the Scottish Greens have stood down in that seat as part of the remain alliance pact,now to Labour they're in severe danger of having just Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) as their sole MP ala 2015,what could save them is remain/unionist voters giving them a loan of their votes to keep the SNP out,but Corbyn's reluctance to come off the fence isn't helping in that mission.

Scottish Westminster Voting Intention:

SNP: 40% (+1)
CON: 28% (+7)
LAB: 20% (+1)
LDM: 11% (-2)

Via @Panelbase, 20-22 Nov.
Changes w/ 9-11 Oct.

That''s the most Scottish recent poll to my knowledge.

In 2017 the final % were SNP 37 Con 28.5 Lab 27 Lib Dems 7,but that doesn't tell the whole story,despite losing vote share the Lib Dems actually gained seats,mainly due to tactical voting,and although Labour gained seats,unlike the rest of the UK the Corbyn surge didn't materialise here,Labour only put on 3% to their 2015 share,the Conservatives were of course the big winners,doubling their vote share and adding 12 seats,and even without Ruth Davidson's charismatic leadership they're holding onto those voters.And on the other hand the SNP were the big losers,admittedly from a dizzly high of 56 seats,they lost 21 seats and some big beasts,including a certain Alex Salmond.

Scotland is the home of the marginal seat,46 of the 59 are less than 10 points of a majority,30 of the SNP'S 35,8 of the Conservatives 13,and 6 of Labour's 7,some are even three-way marginals,so a small national swing in either parties direction could lead to a raft of seats changing hands.

Yes brexit is an issue up here,but so is the nationalist/unionist divide,and in addition the SNP have been in government at Holyrood for 12 years,i'm aware this is a UK GE,but a lot of the issues under discussion are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament,so the SNP attack lines might not carry as much weight as they normally would.

[AndrewJB]

So just to ask the question again (so as to put your answer completely beyond doubt) you honestly believe the 4th Railway Package - and for that matter article 107 of Lisbon - would not prevent us renationalising the entire railway system, put it under monopoly state ownership, subsidise it, and all without a competitive tendering process needing to take place?

What I’m saying is if Luxembourg can run their trains as a public service, then so can we. We know Germany legally provide three times more state aid than we do, and the French twice as much. There are ways of doing that t that don’t transgress EU regulation.

[Lowbankclaret]

Yes but your not allowing for the fact they run the EU. They also flout rules that others may not.

I will never forget working in France and the a French telling me that .

The only people they hate more than the British is the Germans.
Unfortunately they run the EU.

We will not get away with what they do.

[Devils_Advocate]

More lies and bullsh*t Lowbank. You and the Brexit Party really do fit together hand in glove

[martin_p]

And the biggest bonus, no one will have pay for it.

Well apart from a few rich tw4ts who can afford it.

You can’t keep claiming to have read the Labour manifesto and the spout ******** like this. You’re either lying when you say you’ve read it, deliberately lying about the content or don’t understand what you’ve read.

[Lowbankclaret]

83 billion Extra spending a year .
Paid for by the top 5%.

[Lowbankclaret]

To be fair it’s only £1600 per person on top of what they already pay.

[If it be your will]

What I’m saying is if Luxembourg can run their trains as a public service, then so can we. We know Germany legally provide three times more state aid than we do, and the French twice as much. There are ways of doing that t that don’t transgress EU regulation.

I can't tell if you've answered my question or not.

So if Luxembourg can run a PSO service without competitive tender for 275km of commuter lines, having taken advantage of the exemption in paragraph 23 here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32007R1370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , we can do the same for 16,000km of railways in the UK?

[Lowbankclaret]

You can’t keep claiming to have read the Labour manifesto and the spout ******** like this. You’re either lying when you say you’ve read it, deliberately lying about the content or don’t understand what you’ve read.

So are you arguing it’s all free???

No one pays for the 83billuon extra spending.

Plus there’s a few promises not included in the costings., but we can ignore that as the single pensioners can pay extra council tax to pay for that.

[AndrewJB]

Yes but your not allowing for the fact they run the EU. They also flout rules that others may not.

I will never forget working in France and the a French telling me that .

The only people they hate more than the British is the Germans.
Unfortunately they run the EU.

We will not get away with what they do.

The member nations “run” the EU. Luxembourg do not run it, and nor does Germany.

[If it be your will]

So are you arguing it’s all free???

No one pays for the 83billuon extra spending.

Plus there’s a few promises not included in the costings., but we can ignore that as the single pensioners can pay extra council tax to pay for that.

I've had a quick look at their costings, and it does look like it would all be free for me. Would it not be for you?