UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[draykorinee]

And the Tories followed an austerity process to clear the deficit that most economists agreed would actually damage attempts to clear the deficit by choking back on spending in the economy. They have overseen an extended period of money movement from the poor (who tend to spend their income, helping to drive the economy and increase tax revenue, which would reduce the deficit) to the rich (who tend to bank their income in ways that minimise their tax, rather than spending it to help drive the economy). Then they doubled down on that by reducing the tax levels for the rich, which meant their income was pushed down even more.

Their primary activities were always going to result in the deficit going down more slowly, which results in the debt going up more quickly. Hey look, it's almost as if I understand the relationship between the two, despite your sad efforts to suggest that I don't. And they put a man in charge of sorting out the economy who had no experience in the field, no qualifications in the field and gave every impression of having no aptitude for it either.

So no, not every government would have run up the same level of debt. A government that had an understanding of how economies function wouldn't have followed policies that depressed the economy, stalling their own efforts to reduce the deficit. And they wouldn't be staring at such a mind-boggling level of debt today. But that's what happens when you decide that the way to handle an economic disaster caused by rich people is to screw all the poor people. Or to put it another way, that's what happens when you follow a philosophical approach to the problem, rather than an economic one, when your philosophy is basically "take money from the poor and give it to our rich friends".

Yeah, bit weird when Obama went the stimulus route to say every government would have done the same when they clearly didn't..

[Kalis]

So no, not every government would have run up the same level of debt.

That is true, Labour under Miliband would have increased it far more and Labour under Corbyn would increase it to a size that would be unmanageable.

Not that it matters, as the former did not get into power and apparently success for the latter is holding 200 seats, which would be their worst election result since 1935, according to Len McCluskey.

[draykorinee]

Len is right the media portrayal killed Corbyn from the start, he managed to do a fair bit of damage himself though.

200 would be a success, a disaster 2 years ago, but that's the best we can hope for.

[Kalis]

Len is right the media portrayal killed Corbyn from the start, he managed to do a fair bit of damage himself though.

200 would be a success, a disaster 2 years ago, but that's the best we can hope for.

200 would be a disaster at any time for Labour, unless they are aiming to be a party of protest and not an effective opposition.

[draykorinee]

200 would be a disaster at any time for Labour, unless they are aiming to be a party of protest and not an effective opposition.

That's kind of like saying an Fa Cup win would be a disaster for Arsenal. I'd take 200 right now and know it's above where I'd expected to be a month ago and hope Corbyn walks.

[Kalis]

That's kind of like saying an Fa Cup win would be a disaster for Arsenal. I'd take 200 right now and know it's above where I'd expected to be a month ago and hope Corbyn walks.

The FA Cup is a trophy, saying that winning 200 seats for the Labour Party is a success, is the equivalent of Man Utd narrowly avoiding relegation and going on an open top bus parade to celebrate it.

The reason why McCluskey is saying that would be regarded as a success is because he wants Corbyn to stay on, at least for the McDonnell amendment to be implemented in September, it is setting the stall out to do the opposite of what you are hoping for.

[draykorinee]

The FA Cup is a trophy, saying that winning 200 seats for the Labour Party is a success, is the equivalent of Man Utd narrowly avoiding relegation and going on an open top bus parade to celebrate it.

The reason why McCluskey is saying that would be regarded as a success is because he wants Corbyn to stay on, at least for the McDonnell amendment to be implemented in September, it is setting the stall out to do the opposite of what you are hoping for.

No, because they'll still be the second biggest party by a long shot, your analogy is way off, it's only 30 seats less than last time...not even close to your analogy of a title winning team getting relegated.

Anyway we were talking about what would be a disaster not a success. 200 is not a disaster in today's climate.

[Huehuecoyotl]

The FA Cup is a trophy, saying that winning 200 seats for the Labour Party is a success, is the equivalent of Man Utd narrowly avoiding relegation and going on an open top bus parade to celebrate it.

The reason why McCluskey is saying that would be regarded as a success is because he wants Corbyn to stay on, at least for the McDonnell amendment to be implemented in September, it is setting the stall out to do the opposite of what you are hoping for.

Nice to see you following the MSM approach of quoting things out of context and then blowing them out of all proportion. He said that given the current levels in the polls, 200 seats would be an achievement. He then went on to say that he believed strongly that the manifesto that Labour had set out would be reflected in improvements in the poll numbers.

But why focus on any of that, when you can twist things around to suit your own agenda. At least you are consistent, I guess.

[Kalis]

No, because they'll still be the second biggest party by a long shot, your analogy is way off, it's only 30 seats less than last time...not even close to your analogy of a title winning team getting relegated.

Under 200 would be the equivalent of getting relegated for a party who hope to get into power, so 200 would be just avoiding getting relegated, certainly not equivalent to winning the FA Cup.

Anyway we were talking about what would be a disaster not a success. 200 is not a disaster in today's climate.

A success would be increasing their seats, retaining their current position should be the minimum expected, losing over 10% would be a disaster.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice to see you following the MSM approach of quoting things out of context and then blowing them out of all proportion. He said that given the current levels in the polls, 200 seats would be an achievement. He then went on to say that he believed strongly that the manifesto that Labour had set out would be reflected in improvements in the poll numbers.

But why focus on any of that, when you can twist things around to suit your own agenda. At least you are consistent, I guess.

When Labour are so shit that not being completely annihilated is seen as a success, then they need to have a serious rethink about the change of direction the party has taken under Corbyn.

What next? Will Labour still existing in 2022 be seen as a triumph?

[Huehuecoyotl]

When Labour are so shit that not being completely annihilated is seen as a success, then they need to have a serious rethink about the change of direction the party has taken under Corbyn.

What next? Will Labour still existing in 2022 be seen as a triumph?

What, not apologising for adding to the fake news by repeating an out of context quote that completely misrepresented the speaker? Allow me to register my utter lack of shock.

[Kalis]

What, not apologising for adding to the fake news by repeating an out of context quote that completely misrepresented the speaker? Allow me to register my utter lack of shock.

“I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign. It will mean that Theresa May will have had an election, will have increased her majority but not dramatically.”

Those are his words, no fake news involved. He regards 200 seats as a success, Labour under his chosen candidate have lowered their sights to not getting wiped out.

A success for Labour would be winning the General Election and if they had a party that was a viable alternative for government, then they could be aiming for that, though if they had that then May would probably not have called the election.

Try to spin it how you want, it just shows that even the staunchest Corbyn supporters have no faith in the man.

[Huehuecoyotl]

“I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign. It will mean that Theresa May will have had an election, will have increased her majority but not dramatically.”

Those are his words, no fake news involved. He regards 200 seats as a success, Labour under his chosen candidate have lowered their sights to not getting wiped out.

A success for Labour would be winning the General Election and if they had a party that was a viable alternative for government, then they could be aiming for that, though if they had that then May would probably not have called the election.

Try to spin it how you want, it just shows that even the staunchest Corbyn supporters have no faith in the man.

What he actually said was, and I quote: "If the opinion polls are true, I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign". Which is a reasonable comment, given the low starting point Labour have in the polls. He also went on to say that he believed that the manifesto would result in an improvement in those poll numbers.

As I said; out of context. Deliberately trying to misinform people by twisting words in a cowardly way. Just about what I would expect from the self-serving Tory party and the kind of people that support them. Terrified of debating on policies, because the Tories have a track record of terrible policies that the regularly ignore or fail after election anyway.

What do you have from May so far? Bring back fox hunting, maybe keep the chancellor and a refusal to say she won't put up taxes. And the continuing cowardly refusal to enter into proper debate with the public or her political opponents. That sack of nonsense will blow whichever way the political wind blows her, as long as it serves her purpose.

[Deleted]

What do you have from May so far? Bring back fox hunting, maybe keep the chancellor and a refusal to say she won't put up taxes. And the continuing cowardly refusal to enter into proper debate with the public or her political opponents. That sack of nonsense will blow whichever way the political wind blows her, as long as it serves her purpose.

Don't forget manufacturing conflicts with the EU for the sole purpose of stoking nationalist sentiment (and likely further delude the citizenry as to the actual negotiating strength of the UK).
Hell this whole election is a sham, no matter her majority, it will not alter the EU one whit - You only have to look at the Greeks referendum a few years ago.

[Kalis]

What he actually said was, and I quote: "If the opinion polls are true, I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign". Which is a reasonable comment, given the low starting point Labour have in the polls. He also went on to say that he believed that the manifesto would result in an improvement in those poll numbers.

As I said; out of context. Deliberately trying to misinform people by twisting words in a cowardly way. Just about what I would expect from the self-serving Tory party and the kind of people that support them. Terrified of debating on policies, because the Tories have a track record of terrible policies that the regularly ignore or fail after election anyway.

Eh? I quoted more of what he said than you did. And where are you getting that additional part at the beginning from, it is not in the Politico link, they quote it exactly the same as I did and they conducted the interview.

Why is their starting point in the polls so low? When Miliband was in charge of Labour, they were pretty much neck-and-neck in polling with the Tories, they were even leading iirc, now the Tories are 15-20 points ahead and usually polls underestimate Conservative numbers.

Is it because May is so good? Like a lot of Tories, I think she is solid but not spectacular, so doubtful. Or is it perhaps because the British public do not want some terrorist sympathising Marxist who picked a front bench full of mongs?

What do you have from May so far? Bring back fox hunting, maybe keep the chancellor and a refusal to say she won't put up taxes. And the continuing cowardly refusal to enter into proper debate with the public or her political opponents. That sack of nonsense will blow whichever way the political wind blows her, as long as it serves her purpose.

Fox hunting would be a free vote, so would probably not pass, but she is pandering to the countryside vote, all politicians do that. No cabinet member can be guaranteed their role and if taxes need to go up, then they will put them up, but the intention is not to do so.

As to the debate, she has no obligation to go into some Yank-style Presidential group chat. Who would they even have on their alongside her besides Corbyn? Parties that get a fraction of the vote? Corbyn did not want to do it without May because he has nothing to gain by doing so, just as she has nothing to gain when they are so far in the lead. They are in the job of winning elections, not massaging the ego of that bint from Plaid Cymru or the fantasist Paul Nuttall.

I believe she is doing a solo Question Time, as is Corbyn. It is her campaign, so if she wants to say "strong and stable" on a loop, then she will live or die by that choice.


Edit: The original transcript on Politico states it is "And I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign. It will mean that Theresa May will have had an election, will have increased her majority but not dramatically", which is what I quoted barring the word "and".

That follows on directly from "The scale of the task is immense. People like me are always optimistic in the sense that, you know, things can happen you can be quite delighted with. But I don’t see Labour winning. I think it would be extraordinary", so where did you get the line "If the opinion polls are true..." from?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Edit: The original transcript on Politico states it is "And I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign. It will mean that Theresa May will have had an election, will have increased her majority but not dramatically", which is what I quoted barring the word "and".

That follows on directly from "The scale of the task is immense. People like me are always optimistic in the sense that, you know, things can happen you can be quite delighted with. But I don’t see Labour winning. I think it would be extraordinary", so where did you get the line "If the opinion polls are true..." from?

It doesn't follow on directly from the first quote. There is the first quote. Then there is a break. Then there is the second quote. Interesting place for them to break up the flow of what was being said, don't you think? As for where I got the extended quote from, is there really any point in providing links? The entirety of the MSM made sure they stayed on message for this one, only providing the out of context quote and spinning it in the same way. The only places you can find the truth about what was really said are sites that you would no doubt write off as "left wing nonsense".

In the meantime Phillip Hammond went on radio and got the cost of the HS2 link wrong by no less than £20bn. Do you see that being repeated as headline news on every news site? Do you see him being vilified in the same way that Diane Abbot was? Strangely enough you don't, because errors from Labour MPs are being shouted from the rooftops, while errors from Tory MPs are ignored. The billionaires that own and run the media don't want anything getting in the way of their attempts to ensure that the party that will serve them best gets elected.

And the best part is that the manifesto has now launched. They will get rid of the deficit by 2025, don't you know. They promised to get rid of it by 2015 in 2010. Then by 2020 in 2015. They are still following the same ideologies and economic plans, and they still expect it to somehow work this time. Despite it not working for 7 years. They are idiots, and they are damaging this country to serve themselves and their rich backers. And people like you continue to sing their praises from the rooftops.....for no clear reason that I can see.

[Kalis]

It doesn't follow on directly from the first quote. There is the first quote. Then there is a break. Then there is the second quote. Interesting place for them to break up the flow of what was being said, don't you think? As for where I got the extended quote from, is there really any point in providing links? The entirety of the MSM made sure they stayed on message for this one, only providing the out of context quote and spinning it in the same way. The only places you can find the truth about what was really said are sites that you would no doubt write off as "left wing nonsense".

Politico did the interview over the phone, so how did those other sites get different information to the transcript provided by Politico?

Here is the link to the transcript.

This is the full passage as it appears, with the part I quoted in bold:

"The scale of the task is immense. People like me are always optimistic in the sense that, you know, things can happen you can be quite delighted with. But I don’t see Labour winning. I think it would be extraordinary.

And I believe that if Labour can hold on to 200 seats or so it will be a successful campaign. It will mean that Theresa May will have had an election, will have increased her majority but not dramatically. And people will then say, I wonder what that’s all about. So it’s about fighting for every vote now, fighting to, kind of, hold on to the seats that Labour has got. We’ve got 235 at the moment."

It is a pretty serious accusation to say that Politico doctored their transcript, so can you provide the link to where you got the additional information from?

[Fleuria]

Not sure if the Tories are intentionally trying to throw the GE so they can end up proving a point and saying I told you so in 5-10 years..

[draykorinee]

Same old Tories, promising to cut immigration to 100,000 when they have done nothing in the last 7 years, its insulting to most peoples intelligence but the tory voters will lap it up still.

I'm not massively opposed to people like me not getting the free school meals for my kids, but scrapping it the way they are its fair to say its the same as maggies 'milk snatching' and is a scummy move.

Making more people pay for their care is what we expect from the Tories, they basically went against Dilnots advice to cap the amount people pay for their care. They basically have created a 'death tax' as well.

Charging business more to hire overseas is...a bit anti-business but I guess it might help them cut immigration by a few thousand.

Charging more for overseas use of NHS seems a legit sensible thing to do. Unfortunately the NHS is awful at knowing who is overseas and who isn't, absolutely useless at it.

Oh and old people aren't getting the winter fuel tax without means testing, same old Tories.

Like someone said, at least with the Tories you know what you're getting.

The fact the value of your home will be included in means testing for social care and you only get a 100k threshold, its absolutely laughable that they increased the threshold from 23k to 100k. Who has a house worth less than 100K??

[Deleted]

Don't worry Dray, if a family member gets ill, you'll be able to take a year off unpaid. No more having to install a teddy bear camera to see if the social care professional is punching up Grandma because we dont need any trained professionals, you can just do it! Just use that other income we know you have to live off...

[draykorinee]

Don't worry Dray, if a family member gets ill, you'll be able to take a year off unpaid. No more having to install a teddy bear camera to see if the social care professional is punching up Grandma because we dont need any trained professionals, you can just do it! Just use that other income we know you have to live off...

Ha, yeah thanks for that May, what a fantastic help that will be. (Although theoretically as a nurse I would be a trained professional :P) I'll send the kids up the Chimney to pay for it all.