General Election 2019

[Brighton Jambo]

25 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Honestly you believe them..total madness to do so

 

Lies and false promises abound from all of the parties in this race

 

All of them seem to treat the electorate as idiots promising billions on all sorts of nonsense without any explanation of how it is to be paid for

 

The party that admits you can't do everything and to do even some of what they will propose (means no tax cuts and it should mean tax rises) would get my vote

 

They won't and we are to blame for that as well taking a I'm all right attitude summed up by that audience member on question time having no clue about what the top 5% of earners do earn and telling us all £80,000 means he is not well off and there's no way he is in the top 5%

 

Just admit you are a tory voter and frankly are kiss... Boris's backside with your post

 

He is a disgrace, a liar, a cheat, a man who follows the prevailing winds and trying to lecture us about family when he doesn't even stay in touch with his own just beggars belief

 

Corbyn ?..well words fail me . A man living in the 60's and 70's with total nonsense policy claims backed by  a left wing who try to rule with an iron rod getting rid of anyone who dares question them backed by joke union leaders like McClusky who cannot forget his past..a man who has not done a days work since 1979 being backed by a members turnout of just over 15%..no mandate for me that.

 

Again the figures do not stack up re spending promises

Thanks for incoherent rant mixed with personal comments aimed at me.  

 

Why dd you include the line “just admit you are a Tory voter”??????

 

my post was indirect response to someone who asked Tory voters some very specific questions to which I responded.  Hence I was very clearly admitting to being a Tory voter.

 

Perhaps best just stick me on ignore if it bothers you that much and I will continue the debate with the others who have actually read the thread and could understand the reason for my post. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[The Mighty Thor]

3 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

1.  Made it law that 0.7% of GDP is given to department of international development for foreign aid

2.  Took the global lead in making a commitment to zero carbon omissions by 2050.  The first major world economy to do so.

3.  Unemployment is at record low levels. 

 

Manifesto in no order (based on highlights I haven’t read it)

 

1.  Commitment to get brexit done.  To be clear I am no leaver and voted remain but this uncertainty is crippling the country, we need to move on and I personally think a second referendum on it just exacerbates the disruption and paralysis.  

2.  Childcare offering.  Not just a pledge for more spaces or more money but a new type of offering that helps during school holidays as that’s where most people struggle.  I suspect it’s an English and Welsh only policy but if it works it could be a game changer up here too.  

3  Approach to social care.  Not only promise that no one will need to sell home but commitment to cross party consensus on the topic.  I think his is desperately needed as social care is a ticking time bomb that can’t be a political hot potato, they need to work together to resolve and that’s a mature offering.

 

50,000 new/retained nurses isn’t bad either.  Could be said if they hadn’t made cuts might not be needed but better to correct a mistake than double down on it.  

 

So their top 3 achievements making the UK better;

Foreign aid

Spurious pish which will not be measurable until they're long dead in 2050

Spurious pish on social care they've dismantled since the 70s 

 

Their top 3 manifesto promises

Get brexit done - so no deal WTO which ****s every single one of us 

A spurious child care fantasy which lacks the physical infrastructure and more importantly the people to deliver it

50000 'new' nurses which by current employment/training rates won't even cover those leaving the profession 

 

Risible pish from snake oil salesmen par excellence. 

 

 

[redjambo]

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

So scrapping Trident is a red line for Nicola Sturgeon to form a supply and demand relationship with Labour.

 

understandable position given her lifelong dislike of nuclear weapons.

 

Interesting to see how labour responds.  10,000 jobs right in labour hearts lands immediately on the table plus the supply chain impacts across the UK.  

 

Can’t see how he could ever agree to this demand in reality as economic impact, billions in sunk costs lost, NATO impact, job losses, etc.

 

 

 

I'm anti-nuclear, but this is not a good step by Nicola. I can understand why a second Scottish Referendum would be an SNP red line, but she should stop tacking other red lines on. The whole idea should be to prevent a no-deal Brexit and increase the chances of a no-Brexit. Nothing else should matter at the moment. If she's so confident that Scotland will become independent, Scotland can get rid of Trident at that point.

[Costanza]

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

1.  Made it law that 0.7% of GDP is given to department of international development for foreign aid

 

Agree with this and to be commended.
Pretty shameful that other countries have not followed suit and as such a tiny percentage of GDP, makes me wonder why people like Farage are so scathing of the foreign aid budget, particularly when you think one of the aims would be to improve conditions in that country and so reduce migration, something that (in my view) is used as a xenophobic tactic by the likes of Farage. Anyway, that's another argument.

 

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

2.  Took the global lead in making a commitment to zero carbon omissions by 2050.  The first major world economy to do so.

 

This is a reasonable aim but as far as I can see, there is no detail on costing and how we will achieve this.
2050 whilst better than most G7 countries does substantially lag behind Finland and Norway, albeit think an easier achievement based on country size.
2050 seems too late to me personally and I don't see anything in the Conservative manifesto that is going to accelerate zero emissions by 2050.
It just feels like a wooly kicking the can down the road and certainly less a reflection of the climate crisis than Labour's proposals.

 

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

3.  Unemployment is at record low levels. 

 

On the surface, this is a good thing but the headline rate doesn't tell the full story.
For example, the OECD reported earlier this year that the rate would be much higher if the economically inactive were included.
In addition, the headline rate doesn't reflect 'Disguised Unemployment' i.e. people not in full-time employment but also not counted in the official figures if they are part time, or on zero hours contracts.
It would be good to see a properly drilled down report on jobs within the economy to see just how productive employment is in the UK.

 

 

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Manifesto in no order (based on highlights I haven’t read it)

 

1.  Commitment to get brexit done.  To be clear I am no leaver and voted remain but this uncertainty is crippling the country, we need to move on and I personally think a second referendum on it just exacerbates the disruption and paralysis.  

 

Personally, I think this is a con statement to say Get Brexit Done.
We still have to agree a FTA and with the stupid, repeating mistakes of the past promise, to get this done by end of 2020 (most FTA's take years) we are again raising the possibility of No Deal and all the economic carnage that would bring.

 

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

2.  Childcare offering.  Not just a pledge for more spaces or more money but a new type of offering that helps during school holidays as that’s where most people struggle.  I suspect it’s an English and Welsh only policy but if it works it could be a game changer up here too.  

 

Increased childcare is a good thing but the value over the next 4 years (£1bn) is half the money allocated to potholes and is that really enough money to have a transformative impact on childcare?
I have my doubts.

 

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

3  Approach to social care.  Not only promise that no one will need to sell home but commitment to cross party consensus on the topic.  I think his is desperately needed as social care is a ticking time bomb that can’t be a political hot potato, they need to work together to resolve and that’s a mature offering.

 

This isn't really a policy commitment but just another kicking the can down the road job.
Johnson after elected promised to "fix the crisis in social care once and for all" using a "clear plan we have prepared".
Now it's just talk of cross party consensus (mature yes but why wasn't it suitable for bloody Brexit!) and has no commitment to how it will be funded.
Clearly after the Theresa May "own goal" they are just trying to avoid difficult questions.

Which to be honest, is just like the whole manifesto to me.
Timid, far from radical, wholly insufficient to deal with the countries problems and essentially designed just not to scare the horses. That's how I read this manifesto.

 

4 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

50,000 new/retained nurses isn’t bad either.  Could be said if they hadn’t made cuts might not be needed but better to correct a mistake than double down on it.  

 

 

Thanks for the response, much appreciated.
Some interesting answers so have commented below each one in turn.

 

 

[Cade]

Unemployment is at record lows for several reasons;

Working just 1 hour a week classifies you as "employed" for government statistics purposes.

Many people have to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. This means that you cannot count one job as one person.

Also, due to the hostile environment in job centres these days, people are being sanctioned for trivial reasons and are therefor struck off the unemployment figures.

 

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics"

 

 

[Governor Tarkin]

5 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

So scrapping Trident is a red line for Nicola Sturgeon to form a supply and demand relationship with Labour.

 

understandable position given her lifelong dislike of nuclear weapons.

 

 

All human beings should have a lifelong dislike of nuclear weapons.

 

Probably something her and Corbyn actually agree on.

[Brighton Jambo]

6 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

All human beings should have a lifelong dislike of nuclear weapons.

 

Probably something her and Corbyn actually agree on.

I agree with the sentiment, you would have to be a warped character to claim to ‘like Nuclear weapons.’

 

I’m just not sure on this topic it was the right ‘red line’ to pick as scrapping Trident is much much easier to say than do given the implications both domestically, economically and in regards to foreign policy commitments to NATO etc.

 

as I said genuinely no issue with NS calling this out it just caught me by surprise as I honestly don’t think it’s deliverable.  Unless maybe it was a bargaining chip to say well if you can’t scrap Trident at least get them out of Faslane.  Who knows 

[Brighton Jambo]

7 hours ago, Costanza said:

 

Agree with this and to be commended.
Pretty shameful that other countries have not followed suit and as such a tiny percentage of GDP, makes me wonder why people like Farage are so scathing of the foreign aid budget, particularly when you think one of the aims would be to improve conditions in that country and so reduce migration, something that (in my view) is used as a xenophobic tactic by the likes of Farage. Anyway, that's another argument.

 

 

This is a reasonable aim but as far as I can see, there is no detail on costing and how we will achieve this.
2050 whilst better than most G7 countries does substantially lag behind Finland and Norway, albeit think an easier achievement based on country size.
2050 seems too late to me personally and I don't see anything in the Conservative manifesto that is going to accelerate zero emissions by 2050.
It just feels like a wooly kicking the can down the road and certainly less a reflection of the climate crisis than Labour's proposals.

 

 

On the surface, this is a good thing but the headline rate doesn't tell the full story.
For example, the OECD reported earlier this year that the rate would be much higher if the economically inactive were included.
In addition, the headline rate doesn't reflect 'Disguised Unemployment' i.e. people not in full-time employment but also not counted in the official figures if they are part time, or on zero hours contracts.
It would be good to see a properly drilled down report on jobs within the economy to see just how productive employment is in the UK.

 

 

 

Personally, I think this is a con statement to say Get Brexit Done.
We still have to agree a FTA and with the stupid, repeating mistakes of the past promise, to get this done by end of 2020 (most FTA's take years) we are again raising the possibility of No Deal and all the economic carnage that would bring.

 

 

Increased childcare is a good thing but the value over the next 4 years (£1bn) is half the money allocated to potholes and is that really enough money to have a transformative impact on childcare?
I have my doubts.

 

 

This isn't really a policy commitment but just another kicking the can down the road job.
Johnson after elected promised to "fix the crisis in social care once and for all" using a "clear plan we have prepared".
Now it's just talk of cross party consensus (mature yes but why wasn't it suitable for bloody Brexit!) and has no commitment to how it will be funded.
Clearly after the Theresa May "own goal" they are just trying to avoid difficult questions.

Which to be honest, is just like the whole manifesto to me.
Timid, far from radical, wholly insufficient to deal with the countries problems and essentially designed just not to scare the horses. That's how I read this manifesto.
 

 

 

Thanks for the response, much appreciated.
Some interesting answers so have commented below each one in turn.

 

 

I do completely agree with you about it being a very safe and timid manifesto.  I think they were so burned last time when they had a seemingly unassailable lead they have played it super safe.

 

i also agree about the social care pound you raise but do think the call for a consensus approach is the right one and after the cluster@@@@ of the last manifesto i wouldn’t have been surprised to see any reference to the topic being dropped altogether.   On some huge  topics, such as this and the NHS cross party working is the key.  It should have happened earlier with brexit but didn’t and I hope they learn.  

 

I knew new I would get pulled up for the unemployment stats but I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  I am sure the figure would be higher if some of the anomalies were addressed but still think overall the position is positive.

 

the childcare one is interesting to me.  It’s not the value that caught my eye, other parties offering more.  It’s the fact that it’s a policy the starts to address the whole school holiday childcare problem that for some families (including mine) is the real challenge.  

 

Anyway all this is me playing devils advocate to an extent as I won’t be voting conservative this time.  Have done before and will almost certainly do again but this particular cabinet are just too much for me.  For first time in as long as I can remember I may not vote at all or will vote tactically. 

 

Thanks for responding in a civil way.  I can’t take most of the abuse I get for having different views but last night they were coming too thick

and too fast!!

[Justin Z]

8 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm anti-nuclear, but this is not a good step by Nicola. I can understand why a second Scottish Referendum would be an SNP red line, but she should stop tacking other red lines on. The whole idea should be to prevent a no-deal Brexit and increase the chances of a no-Brexit. Nothing else should matter at the moment. If she's so confident that Scotland will become independent, Scotland can get rid of Trident at that point.

 

Agree 100% with this.

[RobboM]

8 hours ago, Costanza said:

 

Agree with this and to be commended.
Pretty shameful that other countries have not followed suit and as such a tiny percentage of GDP, makes me wonder why people like Farage are so scathing of the foreign aid budget, particularly when you think one of the aims would be to improve conditions in that country and so reduce migration, something that (in my view) is used as a xenophobic tactic by the likes of Farage. Anyway, that's another argument.

 

....
 

Which to be honest, is just like the whole manifesto to me.
Timid, far from radical, wholly insufficient to deal with the countries problems and essentially designed just not to scare the horses. That's how I read this manifesto.
 

 

 

 

 

Good analysis Costanza

It makes you wonder why they throw in a lie about nurses numbers, it's like they can't help themselves.

On Foreign Aid,  for Farage it doesn't matter the size of the Foreign Aid budget, or even that there is a large amount of benign self interest associated with it but it can be used as  a stick to beat ANY domestic funding issue. I don't know if you are on Facebook but the number of times I see memes of Foreign Aid versus treatment of Army Veterans, Foreign Aid versus NHS funding. Foreign Aid budget is the right wing magic money tree!

[logie green]

9 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm anti-nuclear, but this is not a good step by Nicola. I can understand why a second Scottish Referendum would be an SNP red line, but she should stop tacking other red lines on. The whole idea should be to prevent a no-deal Brexit and increase the chances of a no-Brexit. Nothing else should matter at the moment. If she's so confident that Scotland will become independent, Scotland can get rid of Trident at that point.

isn't this just a negotiating point.

"sorry we had to give up on getting rid of Trident (and the job losses) for now - but we've got our referendum"

[dobmisterdobster]

Labour will need at least 270 MPs to have a shot at a coalition with the SNP.

 

Corbyn can give up his childish dreams of being prime minister.

[Pans Jambo]

14 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

So scrapping Trident is a red line for Nicola Sturgeon to form a supply and demand relationship with Labour.

 

understandable position given her lifelong dislike of nuclear weapons.

 

Interesting to see how labour responds.  10,000 jobs right in labour hearts lands immediately on the table plus the supply chain impacts across the UK.  

 

Can’t see how he could ever agree to this demand in reality as economic impact, billions in sunk costs lost, NATO impact, job losses, etc.

 

 

Theres 10,000 jobs to look after JUST Trident? 10,000 for 4 submarines? Really?

[Pans Jambo]

Edited November 25, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Pans Jambo]

So 3,300 then. The rest are Navy personnel.

 

Bit of a drop for the 10,000 mentioned.

[AlphonseCapone]

18 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Funny you didn't post the analysis 

 

 

 

 

Bet they're shitting themselves.

 

 

18 hours ago, Trapper John McIntyre said:

So much for a Nat clean sweep. Just means the 60%+ unionist vote is coalescing around one party.

 

Not quite the 60% that Nats are looking for.

 

More desperate than usual Johnny boy.

[Brighton Jambo]

39 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Theres 10,000 jobs to look after JUST Trident? 10,000 for 4 submarines? Really?

That’s a conservative estimate.  8000 is roughly the workforce in Barrow in Furness employed by BAE systems who are building the new submarines.  That figure doesn’t include anyone at Faslane employed to maintain the submarines when in service or anyone in the extensive supply chain required to built the subs.  So 8000 minimum in the short term if he Programme was scrapped and the rest more slowly as the existing subs are retired.

 

so based on your post above which I have just seen it’s about right 8000 at BAE and then the 3300 you quoted.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

That’s a conservative estimate.  That’s roughly the workforce in Barrow in Furness employed by BAE systems who are building the new submarines.  That figure doesn’t include anyone at Faslane employed to maintain the submarines when in service or anyone in the extensive supply chain required to built the subs.  10,000 minimum in the short term if he Programme was scrapped and the rest more slowly as the existing subs are retired.

So?

If it means getting rid of disgusting weapons of mass destruction that are not needed then so be it. We can spend that kind of money elsewhere (conservative estimate of £205Bn to replace trident I last heard).

 

Its not as if 10,000 would be unemployed either, most would probably be absorbed into other things like surface ships or other industries and as far as Scotland goes, the SNP has already stated that they would use Faslane as the Scottish naval base (we are on an island).

 

In any-case, does nobody care about the 420,000 plus jobs already gone due to Brexit? 10,000 seems like a drop in the ocean in comparison!

 

https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/brexit-index/

[Brighton Jambo]

44 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

So 3,300 then. The rest are Navy personnel.

 

Bit of a drop for the 10,000 mentioned.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-7649211/BAE-Systems-hiring-900-staff-Cumbrian-sub-base-including-50-graduates-350-apprentices.html

 

for clarity the Astute Programme is winding down now with the last boat in production, the dreadnaught programme referred to in the article is Trident replacement.  Maybe the people could build ships instead and I’m sure the WM government would love nothing more than to divert work from Scottish shipyards to protect English jobs.  No doubt NS would be screaming about that which would be ironic.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Brighton Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

So?

If it means getting rid of disgusting weapons of mass destruction that are not needed then so be it. We can spend that kind of money elsewhere (conservative estimate of £205Bn to replace trident I last heard).

 

Its not as if 10,000 would be unemployed either, most would probably be absorbed into other things like surface ships or other industries and as far as Scotland goes, the SNP has already stated that they would use Faslane as the Scottish naval base (we are on an island).

 

In any-case, does nobody care about the 420,000 plus jobs already gone due to Brexit? 10,000 seems like a drop in the ocean in comparison!

 

https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/brexit-index/

You asked for the numbers I told you them and showed my rationale 

 

i don’t want to get into a slanging match over Trident I can’t be bothered as I don’t feel that strongly about it.  My point had you bothered to read my posts was more that it was a strange red line to choose when labour will never be able to agree to it.

 

 

[Brighton Jambo]

7 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

So?

If it means getting rid of disgusting weapons of mass destruction that are not needed then so be it. We can spend that kind of money elsewhere (conservative estimate of £205Bn to replace trident I last heard).

 

Its not as if 10,000 would be unemployed either, most would probably be absorbed into other things like surface ships or other industries and as far as Scotland goes, the SNP has already stated that they would use Faslane as the Scottish naval base (we are on an island).

 

In any-case, does nobody care about the 420,000 plus jobs already gone due to Brexit? 10,000 seems like a drop in the ocean in comparison!

 

https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/brexit-index/

Did you read (please be honest now) the rationale/methodology that man used to generate he figure.

 

Absolute total nonsense, i mean zero credibility whatsoever in those numbers.

 

i hate brexit too, we agree on that but you undermine the argument and your own credibility by posting utter drivel like that.   

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

You asked for the numbers I told you them and showed my rationale 

 

i don’t want to get into a slanging match over Trident I can’t be bothered as I don’t feel that strongly about it.  My point had you bothered to read my posts was more that it was a strange red line to choose when labour will never be able to agree to it.

 

 

Fine 

We will just how desperate he wants to get into number 10.

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Did you read (please be honest now) the rationale/methodology that man used to generate he figure.

 

Absolute total nonsense, i mean zero credibility whatsoever in those numbers.

 

i hate brexit too, we agree on that but you undermine the argument and your own credibility by posting utter drivel like that.   

Its solid. What are you talking about?

[coconut doug]

11 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm anti-nuclear, but this is not a good step by Nicola. I can understand why a second Scottish Referendum would be an SNP red line, but she should stop tacking other red lines on. The whole idea should be to prevent a no-deal Brexit and increase the chances of a no-Brexit. Nothing else should matter at the moment. If she's so confident that Scotland will become independent, Scotland can get rid of Trident at that point.

 

But we are not confident that we will get an independence referendum. IMO there is only a small chance of a hung parliament and in that circumstance the Labour party say they will not allow Indyref for a couple of years anyway. If there is a hung parliament though how stupid will Labour look denying Indyref2 because they want to keep Trident in Scotland? 

  I do absolutely take your point though i. e. Trident has no place in an independent Scotland so why make this a condition of support unless you think you are not going to win Indyref2.

[Brighton Jambo]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

Its solid. What are you talking about?

Where to start.....

 

he basically says anything linked to Austerity is brexit related as if brexit hadn’t happened austerity would have been lifted - big assumption

 

he assumes any jobs moved abroad are directly associated with Brexit when these decisions are made all the time across industry for any number of reasons.  

 

then he says any business that was ‘doing okay’ (scientific stuff) before brexit vote can attribute losses to Brexit.  

 

All if the above make massive assumptions to say the least.  So I checked the actual data too.

 

a couple of highlights:

 

- nearly 10,000 jobs from Thomas cook.  Thomas cook not only didn’t go under because of brexit but the majority of those job losses were mitigated when they were brought over.  

 

- BAE Shipyards 1000 redundancies - there’s hasn’t been Redundancies since 2013 I should know I have worked in the industry for 13 years.  There isn’t any planned either as the workload demand increases to service T26.  

- likewise Babcock and Harland Wolff are called out - none of there job losses are anything to do with Brexit -fact.

- house of Fraser 12500 jobs - really?  That’s because of Brexit total assumptions and zero evidence. 

 

I could go on but there were just a few examples from scanning it for five minutes.

 

the guy has made enormous assumptions and then has just made stuff up and added it all together or come up with total nonsense numbers!! 

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

6 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Where to start.....

 

he basically says anything linked to Austerity is brexit related as if brexit hadn’t happened austerity would have been lifted - big assumption

 

he assumes any jobs moved abroad are directly associated with Brexit when these decisions are made all the time across industry for any number of reasons.  

 

then he says any business that was ‘doing okay’ (scientific stuff) before brexit vote can attribute losses to Brexit.  

 

All if the above make massive assumptions to say the least.  So I checked the actual data too.

 

a couple of highlights:

 

- nearly 10,000 jobs from Thomas cook.  Thomas cook not only didn’t go under because of brexit but the majority of those job losses were mitigated when they were brought over.  

 

- BAE Shipyards 1000 redundancies - there’s hasn’t been Redundancies since 2013 I should know I have worked in the industry for 13 years.  There isn’t any planned either as the workload demand increases to service T26.  

- likewise Babcock and Harland Wolff are called out - none of there job losses are anything to do with Brexit -fact.

- house of Fraser 12500 jobs - really?  That’s because of Brexit total assumptions and zero evidence. 

 

I could go on but there were just a few examples from scanning it for five minutes.

 

the guy has made enormous assumptions and then has just made stuff up and added it all together or come up with total nonsense numbers!! 

 

 

Fake news mate. Am I doing this right?

 

10000 jobs supported by nuclear submarines though. Canny have any job losses. Be a disaster!

 

Yes the guy may be talking through a hole in his arse but its fair to say that tory Austerity has caused hundreds of thousands of jobs these last 10 years and Brexit will likely do the same if no worse (dont take my word for it just look at the UK governments own reports into the matter).

 

But when the time comes the next big hooha will be faslane shutting, whole swathes of Scotland closing down, tens of thousands of job losses and if we can only just see that Westminster being kind enough to allow us to host WMD's in Scotland then we should just keep on keeping on with the union.

 

It's a crock of shite mate, yes there may well be job losses but nobody will convince me that it will be anywhere near as bad as they say and certainly not as bad as anything the tories have thrown at Scotland over the last 4 decades or so and will continue to do with Brexit etc.

 

Toxic.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

Its solid. What are you talking about?

 

How does Jamie Oliver being a shite business man have anything to do with Brexit?

[Brighton Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Fake news mate. Am I doing this right?

 

10000 jobs supported by nuclear submarines though. Canny have any job losses. Be a disaster!

 

Yes the guy may be talking through a hole in his arse but its fair to say that tory Austerity has caused hundreds of thousands of jobs these last 10 years and Brexit will likely do the same if no worse (dont take my word for it just look at the UK governments own reports into the matter).

 

But when the time comes the next big hooha will be faslane shutting, whole swathes of Scotland closing down, tens of thousands of job losses and if we can only just see that Westminster being kind enough to allow us to host WMD's in Scotland then we should just keep on keeping on with the union.

 

It's a crock of shite mate, yes there may well be job losses but nobody will convince me that it will be anywhere near as bad as they say and certainly not as bad as anything the tories have thrown at Scotland over the last 4 decades or so and will continue to do with Brexit etc.

 

Toxic.

I have never once said the job losses would be that bad in Scotland in relation to Trident.  I agree as Faslane can be used as a naval base.  

 

They would be bad in Cumbria which is labour heartlands and why the Labour Party, amongst other things relating to NATO commitments, will never agree to cancel Trident.

 

watch the interview with Nicola sturgeon she did not say no nuclear weapons in Scotland she said scrapping the Trident programme was a red line for her.  

 

I am am trying to work out why from a political standpoint as she has just set a red line that labour can’t and won’t hit and it feels a bit out of left field.

 

a mistake or a cunning plan I can’t tell.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

That’s a conservative estimate.  8000 is roughly the workforce in Barrow in Furness employed by BAE systems who are building the new submarines.  That figure doesn’t include anyone at Faslane employed to maintain the submarines when in service or anyone in the extensive supply chain required to built the subs.  So 8000 minimum in the short term if he Programme was scrapped and the rest more slowly as the existing subs are retired.

 

so based on your post above which I have just seen it’s about right 8000 at BAE and then the 3300 you quoted.

The Tory didn't give a feck about jobs when they pulled the plug on Linwood. 16000 jobs gone 

[Unknown user]

26 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I have never once said the job losses would be that bad in Scotland in relation to Trident.  I agree as Faslane can be used as a naval base.  

 

They would be bad in Cumbria which is labour heartlands and why the Labour Party, amongst other things relating to NATO commitments, will never agree to cancel Trident.

 

watch the interview with Nicola sturgeon she did not say no nuclear weapons in Scotland she said scrapping the Trident programme was a red line for her.  

 

I am am trying to work out why from a political standpoint as she has just set a red line that labour can’t and won’t hit and it feels a bit out of left field.

 

a mistake or a cunning plan I can’t tell.

 

Stupid to add red lines IMO, you just back yourself into an unnecessary corner that destroys your credibility if you move.

 

If parties want to stand out, be more reasonable, less stubborn, not as stubborn and unmovable as the rest.

No one can blame the snp for having independence stuff as core red lines, it's the reason they exist, but everything else doesn't need to be like that.

 

Folly IMO

[Ray Gin]

https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/13/child-homelessness-jumps-73-since-tories-took-power-8242314/?fbclid=IwAR2CHsUcvrzRLRo7h2bVu66yfWZKWY2aeNiM0WMbvYl-pIzn3uN19BnKPYg

 

Child homelessness jumps by 73% since Tories took power

 

 

[John Findlay]

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/13/child-homelessness-jumps-73-since-tories-took-power-8242314/?fbclid=IwAR2CHsUcvrzRLRo7h2bVu66yfWZKWY2aeNiM0WMbvYl-pIzn3uN19BnKPYg

 

Child homelessness jumps by 73% since Tories took power

 

 

Still 7,000 less than 2006 though. Who was in government then?

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Still 7,000 less than 2006 though. Who was in government then?

 

Certainly not the SNP.   

 

It was Labour, who by 2010 had successfully reduced the number drastically only for the Tories to **** it up again.

[dobmisterdobster]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Fine 

We will just how desperate he wants to get into number 10.

That's the problem. He is so desperate to get into power, he will do and say anything. It's kinda sad.

[coconut doug]

On 23/11/2019 at 10:03, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Aye because Blackford is a total mare. She got an incredibly easy time of it mostly due to the audience having no interest in regional politics of Scotland. All she was allowed to do was spout her Indy and Brexit guff. She did give one hopeless answer about the ability of an independent Scotland to meet the EU’s entry requirements, but no one seemed to notice.

 

Are you able to tell us what her hopeless answer was that we all missed or are you just spouting guff? 

[Costanza]

6 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I do completely agree with you about it being a very safe and timid manifesto.  I think they were so burned last time when they had a seemingly unassailable lead they have played it super safe.

 

i also agree about the social care pound you raise but do think the call for a consensus approach is the right one and after the cluster@@@@ of the last manifesto i wouldn’t have been surprised to see any reference to the topic being dropped altogether.   On some huge  topics, such as this and the NHS cross party working is the key.  It should have happened earlier with brexit but didn’t and I hope they learn.  

 

I knew new I would get pulled up for the unemployment stats but I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  I am sure the figure would be higher if some of the anomalies were addressed but still think overall the position is positive.

 

the childcare one is interesting to me.  It’s not the value that caught my eye, other parties offering more.  It’s the fact that it’s a policy the starts to address the whole school holiday childcare problem that for some families (including mine) is the real challenge.  

 

Anyway all this is me playing devils advocate to an extent as I won’t be voting conservative this time.  Have done before and will almost certainly do again but this particular cabinet are just too much for me.  For first time in as long as I can remember I may not vote at all or will vote tactically. 

 

Thanks for responding in a civil way.  I can’t take most of the abuse I get for having different views but last night they were coming too thick

and too fast!!

Cheers for that.

On the unemployment rate, was more a general observation rather than explicitly criticising the Tories as most governments manage the headline figure politically and it would be nice to see a more informative measure.

 

On childcare,  I'm guilty of looking at the headline figure rather than the specific detail.

As someone who knows full well the cost and availability,  would be interesting to see the overall economic impact of heavily subsidised childcare, as whilst we are on the fortunate position that we can afford it, the cost must prevent a lot of people from returning to the workplace.

 

In terms of the current Tory leadership,  I can easily see why mainstream Tories are being turned off. Johnson talks about One Nation Conservatism but he has no fixed ideology,  just the pursuit of power. 

[Costanza]

5 hours ago, RobboM said:

Good analysis Costanza

It makes you wonder why they throw in a lie about nurses numbers, it's like they can't help themselves.

On Foreign Aid,  for Farage it doesn't matter the size of the Foreign Aid budget, or even that there is a large amount of benign self interest associated with it but it can be used as  a stick to beat ANY domestic funding issue. I don't know if you are on Facebook but the number of times I see memes of Foreign Aid versus treatment of Army Veterans, Foreign Aid versus NHS funding. Foreign Aid budget is the right wing magic money tree!

The Foreign Aid stuff infuriates me as it's just so simplistic an analysis. 

If you said Brexit will make us poorer and result inless to spend on the NHS,  would they change their mind on Brexit?

 

[RobboM]

4 minutes ago, Costanza said:

The Foreign Aid stuff infuriates me as it's just so simplistic an analysis. 

If you said Brexit will make us poorer and result inless to spend on the NHS,  would they change their mind on Brexit?

 

But the bus said!

[Costanza]

Just now, RobboM said:

But the bus said!

Fair point. 

[John Findlay]

2 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Certainly not the SNP.   

 

It was Labour, who by 2010 had successfully reduced the number drastically only for the Tories to **** it up again.

The Fringe is in August. By the way I am no Tory. Tory/Labour both as bad as each other.

[coconut doug]

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

The Fringe is in August. By the way I am no Tory. Tory/Labour both as bad as each other.

 

The figures reduced significantly under Labour and shortly after the Tories got back in they began to rise again.

 

As far as child poverty is concerned they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and absolutely not "as bad as each other".

[ri Alban]

On Trident. Does anyone believe the Tory Government wouldn't shut the place down and move it to London if they could.

It's up here for a reason. Collateral damage, and we better say "thank you!"

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Stupid to add red lines IMO, you just back yourself into an unnecessary corner that destroys your credibility if you move.

 

If parties want to stand out, be more reasonable, less stubborn, not as stubborn and unmovable as the rest.

No one can blame the snp for having independence stuff as core red lines, it's the reason they exist, but everything else doesn't need to be like that.

 

Folly IMO

It's just tactics. You drop your position on Indyref2 and I'll drop my Trident position.

It'll be gone post independence, anyway.

Edited November 25, 2019 by ri Alban

[maroonlegions]

3 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

That's the problem. He is so desperate to get into power, he will do and say anything. It's kinda sad.

Seriously, look at Boris,  he is the one who will anything like LIE his way to number 10,  outstanding ignorance and arrogance once again..

 

 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

The figures reduced significantly under Labour and shortly after the Tories got back in they began to rise again.

 

As far as child poverty is concerned they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and absolutely not "as bad as each other".

Yes they are. Both have governed over child poverty ad nauseam since the 1930s.

[Boab]

21 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

On Trident. Does anyone believe the Tory Government wouldn't shut the place down and move it to London if they could.

It's up here for a reason. Collateral damage, and we better say "thank you!"

Faslane was a base before we even had nukes. It’s a geographic decision which suits the subs and their ability to get out to the Atlantic etc.

[coconut doug]

Just now, John Findlay said:

Yes they are. Both have governed over child poverty ad nauseam since the 1930s.

 

Child poverty exists everywhere and our country has high levels of it, just as we perform poorly with most social indicators.

 This extract from the IFS report on Child poverty might help reveal the differences 

To date, progress has fallen well short of the considerable ambition. That is despite
reductions in child poverty in the late 1990s and early 2000s that were historically
rapid, driven almost exclusively by reforms which gave away an additional £18 billion
per year in state cash benefits for families with children by the end of Labour’s tenure in
2010 (Browne and Phillips, 2010). But falls in child poverty have since slowed
considerably, or started to reverse (depending on the measure).

 

Just like standards in the NHS , levels of child poverty are determined by political decisions. There are reasons why child poverty is rising and was high between 1979 and 1998 and reasons why at least 130,000 premature deaths occurred recently in the NHS. It is no accident, these are wholly avoidable consequences brought about by Tory governments. 

 

Labour governments might not be good enough but they are always significantly better than the Conservatives.  

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, Boab said:

Faslane was a base before we even had nukes. It’s a geographic decision which suits the subs and their ability to get out to the Atlantic etc.

Of course, but the enemy is to the east.

[John Findlay]

7 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Child poverty exists everywhere and our country has high levels of it, just as we perform poorly with most social indicators.

 This extract from the IFS report on Child poverty might help reveal the differences 

To date, progress has fallen well short of the considerable ambition. That is despite
reductions in child poverty in the late 1990s and early 2000s that were historically
rapid, driven almost exclusively by reforms which gave away an additional £18 billion
per year in state cash benefits for families with children by the end of Labour’s tenure in
2010 (Browne and Phillips, 2010). But falls in child poverty have since slowed
considerably, or started to reverse (depending on the measure).

 

Just like standards in the NHS , levels of child poverty are determined by political decisions. There are reasons why child poverty is rising and was high between 1979 and 1998 and reasons why at least 130,000 premature deaths occurred recently in the NHS. It is no accident, these are wholly avoidable consequences brought about by Tory governments. 

 

Labour governments might not be good enough but they are always significantly better than the Conservatives.  

Define poverty in the UK.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

8 minutes ago, Boab said:

Faslane was a base before we even had nukes. It’s a geographic decision which suits the subs and their ability to get out to the Atlantic etc.

 

It's a perfect Submarine base due to it's proximity to the Atlantic deep sea lanes.