Election 2019 - Week 2

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I have a friend standing in our Constituency, and I’ve been active Conservative since the early 80’s (constituency officer, area officer, National YC officer, stood at both council and constituency level, worked in very many National and By-Elections, been a researcher for Heseltine and others), but I can’t vote Conservative in this election, because of language like that.

I served and actively worked against the Communist menace, and the Tory party should be elected in what it can do to benefit the country, not by using ‘reds under the bed" smear tactics.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. It's (my argument) not to do with Conservative smear tactics - they're all as bad as each other in that respect; it's the self evident facts around Labour on which my argument stands.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Well that's why we have elections every few years, gives people chance to change their minds, makes politicians accountable. The problem with a certain other vote we've had is that there's no going back, it will affect us for decades and we didn't know what was on offer at the time of the vote.

Elections are different from referendums. You know that. The electorate have decided already and only some Remainers appear to be confused.

As for the choice in this ‘people’s vote’, where is the Brexit option that we voted for first time around?

It seems that too many people these days really do not believe in democracy. Shame on them.

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

'The Lesser Evil', not setting the bar high are we ?

No. But exactly where lies Utopia?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I have a friend standing in our Constituency, and I’ve been active Conservative since the early 80’s (constituency officer, area officer, National YC officer, stood at both council and constituency level, worked in very many National and By-Elections, been a researcher for Heseltine and others), but I can’t vote Conservative in this election, because of language like that.

I served and actively worked against the Communist menace, and the Tory party should be elected in what it can do to benefit the country, not by using ‘reds under the bed" smear tactics.

The existential threat is the ex-communists (Putin et al) trying to weaken our country by using psy-ops tactics to spread fear against ‘Others’ and internal strife.

Good for you.

The further to the right they go, the further away from the electorate they go. One Nation Conservatives are deserting or being pushed out of the party. The type the floating voter might vote for. Neither party has grasped that most of the electorate are in the middle.

Fear of the opposition seems to be the Tories main selling point. It's an old record and they need a bit more than that.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Good for you.

The further to the right they go, the further away from the electorate they go. One Nation Conservatives are deserting or being pushed out of the party. The type the floating voter might vote for. Neither party has grasped that most of the electorate are in the middle.

Fear of the opposition seems to be the Tories main selling point. It's an old record and they need a bit more than that.

Just to pick up on the point highlighted above: there is much to fear of the Labour opposition which I needn’t reprise. From the Tory perspective (but not necessarily the nation’s), the Lib Dem’s offer Remain as their central plank; so fear of the opposition there is no surprise. The SNP my well be tapped into the mood of, say 52% of Scotland; so fear of the opposition is also no surprise.

The rest of the Tory policy position is, like the others, oompah on which little will be delivered if there is any project work involved.

[OLD BOY]

The Conservatives seem to be polling better on this forum! The dreaded consequences of voting in Marx brothers Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell must be getting through!

The free broadband policy seemed like a good wheeze until the consequences of that policy started to dawn on them. The press have been scathing about this and business is dismissive. What a rabble of a party they have become.

It's a shame really, because Labour does have some history to be proud of and good governence depends on having an effective opposition. Maybe the Lib Dems will grab that mantle. I certainly hope so, as the moderates in the Labour Party appear to have given up any thoughts of setting up their own centrist wing.

[jfman]

Or Labour voters have tired of reading your posts, Old Boy.

Your broadband point is interesting though. We do certainly have forum members who work in the sector who will be driven away from Labour out of pure self-interest. Similarly those working in cartels in the energy sector will feel the same.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Or Labour voters have tired of reading your posts, Old Boy.

Your broadband point is interesting though. We do certainly have forum members who work in the sector who will be driven away from Labour out of pure self-interest. Similarly those working in cartels in the energy sector will feel the same.

I don't think that's right. If they were previously for Labour, then those right minded among them would be alarmed Labour's economic policies as a whole, and, I hope, the antisemitism issue.

From where I sit, Labour's plan for nationalising Broadband (apart from potentially controlling the free speech), amounts to restoration of the old Clause 4:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

[jfman]

I don’t think that a state owned broadband infrastructure amounts to Clause 4.

The best available/most efficient telecommunications infrastructure is a sole provider. Despite huge efforts to introduce competition the vast majority of the market is controlled by three or four companies.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think that a state owned broadband infrastructure amounts to Clause 4.

The best available/most efficient telecommunications infrastructure is a sole provider. Despite huge efforts to introduce competition the vast majority of the market is controlled by three or four companies.

Then add Railways, Gas, Water, Electricity, postal services. You should be very worried about state ownership on that scale in this modern day of investment economics.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Or Labour voters have tired of reading your posts, Old Boy.

Your broadband point is interesting though. We do certainly have forum members who work in the sector who will be driven away from Labour out of pure self-interest. Similarly those working in cartels in the energy sector will feel the same.

I think Labour voters are working it out without my assistance, jfman.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Then add Railways, Gas, Water, Electricity, postal services. You should be very worried about state ownership on that scale in this modern day of investment economics.

Investment economics?

I'm completely unconcerned that what are fundamentally cartels would be broken up and assets returned to public ownership.

There's no genuine competition in these markets, only privatisation of the profits and nationalisation of the losses through subsidies.

All those brave capitalists can then go out there and invest in markets where there is genuine competition.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think that a state owned broadband infrastructure amounts to Clause 4.

The best available/most efficient telecommunications infrastructure is a sole provider. Despite huge efforts to introduce competition the vast majority of the market is controlled by three or four companies.

Jfman, I don't know how old or young you are, but it seems to me that you have no memory of the days when our major industries were nationalised.

It was not good news.

[richard s]

A majority of these companies are also foreign owned... it is a funny old country that we live in.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by richard s

A majority of these companies are also foreign owned... it is a funny old country that we live in.

Who cares? It's the level of service and pricing you should be concerned about.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Jfman, I don't know how old or young you are, but it seems to me that you have no memory of the days when our major industries were nationalised.

It was not good news.

Poor management doesn’t equate to the underlying economics being flawed.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:29 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Who cares? It's the level of service and pricing you should be concerned about.

When we’re being price gouged in the absence of competition and the profits and dividends are heading to other countries I think it’s a valid point to raise.