Rayvin

Is anyone getting remotely close to impeaching the guy, I've stopped paying attention now really.

I have an account on RTG specifically so that i can read their politics forum which is otherwise hidden. I don't post in it, I just read the views. More balanced mix of people on there although the board still tends to remain overall. One chap started a thread the other day saying he was a leaver, but he thought Labour's position made the most sense out of everyone else's, and that he felt they were the only party who gave him something to vote for. Was happy to have another referendum, didn't feel like the matter had been handled well at all. He seemed politically interested but not super engaged, and was calling for others to change his mind if he was wrong. Now, that's exactly the kind of voter that remain as a whole misses out on if Labour aren't doing what they're doing. So even if he's the only voter in the country who feels that way, not that he will be, Labour's policy has expanded the net of potential voters more than out and out remain ever could. Even if it costs them the votes of other Remainers, as long as those voters don't then go and vote Tory, it's a win. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

Out of nowhere interview with Phillipe Albert in the guardian... pretty good, lots on Keegan: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/17/philippe-albert-newcastle-keegan-asprilla-manchester-united-interview I also find it remarkable how down to earth he is. I mean apparently he retired, put his money away and got a normal job as a green grocer. Now he looks after horses for his wife's business and just seems happy.

They'll pay off his accuser in the coming weeks and that'll be the end of it. We'll all know what that means, but we'll pretend not to.

Just to reinforce that point: Conservative polling by age: 18-24: 16% 25-49: 31% 50-64: 47% 65+: 64% Labour polling by age: 18-24: 49% 25-49: 38% 50-64: 19% 65+: 14% YouGov/Sky/The Times 11-12 Nov #GE2019

I mean look at the LDs, the party of the centre. What the fuck do they actually stand for? Seriously. Beyond Brexit, what is there? Fucking nothing.

How do you think the EU came about if not through some kind of vision? Why do you think they're in a kind of evolution towards statehood if they don't have some overall aim? Your entire first line is based solely on what you have observed from British politics in the past 4 years. I'm not saying we need to adopt a fully socialist economy or anything purist in ideological terms, but I am saying that any shift towards a better future needs an accompanying vision of what that future can be. The vision is what brings people with you from across the aisle, and enables unity going forward. Where we have struggled here, is that we had two fairly radical visions appearing at the same time. I've said before, if the centre could come up with anything remotely resembling an exciting statement on where it wants to be in the future, I'd be back with it. As it stands, I expect that I will simply disengage.

Is nationalism really all you can come up with when someone talks about vision? Fucking hell, if that's representative of the centre then we are indeed fucked. Corbyn, for all you hate the guy, has a vision. It's about making society fairer and more equal, and creating a better life for people in general. That's something he deeply cares about and is at the heart of his campaigning. You can call it bollocks all you like, but that semblance of a vision is important for a lot of people. Especially young people I might add. How can we expect young people to be motivated by pragmatic political decisions that they rightly see as just rearranging window dressing on a fixed model? Disagree all you want, but this country has been crying out for a vision for decades and now has Corbynism and Brexit. The fact that both are inadequate (Corbyn's largely only because he is) doesn't change the fact that they have both motivated people to overcome a status quo that they weren't happy with.

Although having watched that video, I would suggest that he's voting the way he is because he's thoroughly disenfranchised. Someone who has little in the way of individual achievement, and so looks to reflected glory from being 'British'. Brexit is something to be 'proud' about because of the way it's sold, so it appeals to him over and above the mediocre improvements to his life that he thinks any of the parties will really offer. If that is his thinking, I can understand it. This is why 20 years of no one having any kind of vision for the country has been damaging. There needs to be something to rally behind.

Totally agree.

Actually very interesting. Not much we can do about it now sadly. Corbyn is a terrorist sympathising, Stalinist enthusiast, UK hating old man. Johnson is a lying, philandering, insincere, cruel and cynical bastard. While only one of those statements is true, the public clearly can't be expected to establish truth on their own. Which does indeed make Corbyn a liability. Either way he's gone after this. I don't think he'll even see out a full term if he wins it. He looks fed up of all of this now IMO.

Your issue is the free bit? Idk man, they've only included this because they felt it would be eye catching. They might not even follow through with it. But in terms of getting people's attention, it's succeeding. I mean Johnson is promising all kinds of bollocks about Brexit, I don't see the harm in Labour playing the game a bit on a policy that's popular. They're not gonna be able to do it anyway, so who cares. They'll be minority government at best.

Are you? I'm 33.

That isn't how that meme works, grandpa. Don't make me hit you with an 'ok boomer'.

Captures people's attention though... the British public are stupid and unfocused remember.

Well I was just referring to this one really but was writing off the cuff. The others, I assume, will all be cheaper. Commuting (which free broadband, Labour claim, will also eat into - and I suspect they're right) will be under state owned rail, and I would imagine that the same will be true for water and energy suppliers since publicly owned operations don't need to make a profit. What does that have to do with the rest of my point though? Unless your argument is about to be that it's negligible.

Having said all of this, here is your justification for it, for Labour:

Will HS2, at £70bn or whatever it is now, be as productive for the economy as free broadband? I'm doubtful. Renton may disagree.

Labour is effectively cutting taxes by providing for free, services which people would otherwise pay for. Sure it's not actually a tax cut, but it has the same effect. Everyone uses these services and would otherwise have to pay for them, so by taking that pressure away, your average families have more money. I was under the impression that Keynesianism relied heavily on your every day workers having more money to spend, and boosting GDP through their own purchasing power. I mean sure, targeted industry spending will have a big impact too. But with them pushing for Green energy, I don't see why that can't become a leading area of GDP development.

I think there's a decent argument behind it as the economy pivots more towards home working and supporting industries. Also, would not widespread investment boost GDP through Keynesian economic theory?

It doesn't sound like any areas that actually need it are going to be left behind though. The issue would appear to be the extent to which we can afford the borrowing. Honestly I think all of this needs to boost GDP and growth for it to really be sustainable. I can see the argument on the broadband one, since even the CBI have said that just a 10% increase in fibre availability should offer a 1% GDP growth, but these other areas I'm less sure about.

Sure but it does at least appear to make long term economic sense. Do you have shares in Royal Mail or something?

Even if it takes 4 times as long (market value over compensation value) and therefore takes 28 years to pay itself off, is that still not worth it? And, I might add, quicker at paying itself off than Brexit is meant to be by almost twice as much. Although I think you're perhaps overestimating the extent Labour care about the stock market. Would £150bn being wiped out really even faze it? I appreciate the precedent it sets would be alarming though.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-royal-mail-energy-water-savings-bills-national-grid-a9203636.html?fbclid=IwAR01MJMc4X7GG0UIAIGA6tNoNoRlcGDKqDkR_ttyeg-IcFoguC9WoRtpvAg From the article: The nationalisation of water, energy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8bn a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research. A report by Greenwich University’s Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7bn – around a quarter of the widely quoted £196bn price tag calculated by the CBI last month, which also covered rail. Labour’s manifesto for the 12 December general election is expected to include commitments to take the rail network, National Grid, water and mail delivery back into public hands. PSIRU director David Hall said his estimates were based on compensating shareholders for the amount they have invested in utilities being taken into public hands, rather than paying out a “market value” price as the CBI suggested.

God, imagine the fury of the press if it was Corbyn... doesn't bear thinking about.