• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Expect Labour to try and change tack now, think they'll try and do something around their Brexit position.

As AN said during his interrogation who is gong to lead the leave position if they are in power.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Fancy Poll on Newsnight suggests a Tory majority of 65+ ... what a miserable prospect. And in Scotland projected SNP increase in seats from 35 to 43 (I think). For the Union that would potentially be a dangerous combination of outcomes.

My wife is genuinely concerned about the future of the NHS under the Tories as she sees it hanging together through goodwill at the moment - and also fearful that her cancer drug through the NHS will be cancelled as it is a bit more expensive than an equivalent - though the one she is on offers a 5% reduction in likelihood of recurrence cf the equivalent. And that matters. An NHS nurse and midwife of some 40 yrs she doesn't trust the Tories one inch on NHS funding and drug pricing.
Click to expand...
That poll shows what would happen if the GE had been yesterday, still 2 weeks to go and the tory liar-in-chief will hopefully be found out.
 
Assume for a moment that the poll is accurate and BJ gets in with a sizable majority..
One good thing is that it will force Labour to up their game, select a leader who is electable in the eyes of the voting public and become the strong opposition that Parliament needs.
JC is unelectable in the eyes of many Labour voters let alone everyone else.
 
Tashyboy said:
Labour now to change strategy 🤔

Labour to change leader would be the right strategy.
Click to expand...
Don't think it's enough .. the problem lies in the close ties with the unions and the way they work.
I don't mind a union, but for some reason pragmatism has disappeared and they are quite militant or easy to offend.
 
looks if the torys are considering the risk of not putting Boris in front of the AN too.

Seems as though both party's are trying to hide some assets ie Abacus and JRM
 
Hobbit said:
I agree the Tories should have relaxed the purse strings sooner but a choice between prudence and recklessness... as much as it galls me, I go Tory over Labour.
Click to expand...
Understood but I wonder how much of the recklessness is just Tory press .. it's really a case of just looking at it and saying what is truly negative and what is not and given the people behind the papers there is no compelling reason to believe it would be.
I really am fed up with all of the information coming through, we are not getting the truth, we had this for brexit and it took 3 years to flush it out .. If it cannot be proven good or bad it should not be stated.
A major misquote was the number of Billionaires in the UK.. JC used a figure of 150, Forbes quoted several sources saying anything from 50 to 90 .. the point is if we taxed these people and if we chased after the likes of Amazon, Boots, Facebook etc who make profit from the UK, there is no reason to say that we cannot make the budgets outlined work - but no one has sat down and shown these numbers and they are readily available to do a high level calculation.
 
Imurg said:
Assume for a moment that the poll is accurate and BJ gets in with a sizable majority..
One good thing is that it will force Labour to up their game, select a leader who is electable in the eyes of the voting public and become the strong opposition that Parliament needs.
JC is unelectable in the eyes of many Labour voters let alone everyone else.
Click to expand...
But it won't because the unions fund Labour, they pay and they want their candidate at the wheel .. you will only change it by changing the funding mechanism.
Both Tory and labour have always had financial support from people who want to control them in some way, and there lies the issue.

So in the end you will get the same thing but with a different name and the bits that you are told to be offended about will still be in existence.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Fancy Poll on Newsnight suggests a Tory majority of 65+ ... what a miserable prospect. And in Scotland projected SNP increase in seats from 35 to 43 (I think). For the Union that would potentially be a dangerous combination of outcomes.

My wife is genuinely concerned about the future of the NHS under the Tories as she sees it hanging together through goodwill at the moment - and also fearful that her cancer drug through the NHS will be cancelled as it is a bit more expensive than an equivalent - though the one she is on offers a 5% reduction in likelihood of recurrence cf the equivalent. And that matters. An NHS nurse and midwife of some 40 yrs she doesn't trust the Tories one inch on NHS funding and drug pricing.
Click to expand...
Another balanced post. What would you prefer.
 
harpo_72 said:
Understood but I wonder how much of the recklessness is just Tory press .. it's really a case of just looking at it and saying what is truly negative and what is not and given the people behind the papers there is no compelling reason to believe it would be.
I really am fed up with all of the information coming through, we are not getting the truth, we had this for brexit and it took 3 years to flush it out .. If it cannot be proven good or bad it should not be stated.
A major misquote was the number of Billionaires in the UK.. JC used a figure of 150, Forbes quoted several sources saying anything from 50 to 90 .. the point is if we taxed these people and if we chased after the likes of Amazon, Boots, Facebook etc who make profit from the UK, there is no reason to say that we cannot make the budgets outlined work - but no one has sat down and shown these numbers and they are readily available to do a high level calculation.
Click to expand...

Even ignoring the money that has been pledged to be spent there are other things in the Labour manifesto that just don't seem to have been properly thought through. One of their pledges is to plant 2 billion trees by 2040. An admiral aim but when you look at the numbers I can't work out how they can possibly hope to achieve it.

2 billion trees by 2040 is 100 million trees per year for the next 20 years.
100 million trees per year is just under 274000 trees per day (only approx as I I haven't accounted for the extra days for leap years)
274000 trees per day is just under 11500 trees to be planted per hour, every hour, for the next 20 years.

But it's not just Labour......

The Lib Dems have pledged 60 million trees per year - just under 7000 per hour
The Tories have pledged 30 million trees per year - around 3500 per hour

Leaving aside where they are going to source all these trees and the costs involved with buying them the manpower involved to plant that amount of trees would be vast. Assuming it's possible for someone to plant 10 trees per hour, the Labour plans would require 1150 people (approx) planting trees 24 hours per day for the next 20 years.

EDIT - source for the numbers pledged - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50578207
 
Channel 4 Leaders debate on Climate Change, boris not attending.
No date set for his one on one with Andrew Neil.

What’s he running from? Maybe it’s his lies and the inability to answer questions without an ear piece?
 
pauldj42 said:
Channel 4 Leaders debate on Climate Change, boris not attending.
No date set for his one on one with Andrew Neil.

What’s he running from? Maybe it’s his lies and the inability to answer questions without an ear piece?
Click to expand...

Gove was meant to stand in, but I read somewhere CH4 declined this.
 
ColchesterFC said:
Even ignoring the money that has been pledged to be spent there are other things in the Labour manifesto that just don't seem to have been properly thought through. One of their pledges is to plant 2 billion trees by 2040. An admiral aim but when you look at the numbers I can't work out how they can possibly hope to achieve it.

2 billion trees by 2040 is 100 million trees per year for the next 20 years.
100 million trees per year is just under 274000 trees per day (only approx as I I haven't accounted for the extra days for leap years)
274000 trees per day is just under 11500 trees to be planted per hour, every hour, for the next 20 years.

But it's not just Labour......

The Lib Dems have pledged 60 million trees per year - just under 7000 per hour
The Tories have pledged 30 million trees per year - around 3500 per hour

Leaving aside where they are going to source all these trees and the costs involved with buying them the manpower involved to plant that amount of trees would be vast. Assuming it's possible for someone to plant 10 trees per hour, the Labour plans would require 1150 people (approx) planting trees 24 hours per day for the next 20 years.

EDIT - source for the numbers pledged - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50578207
Click to expand...
Christ alive, that's a lot of trees ! But it would keep a lot of people busy and that would mean higher employment ;).. But seriously where would they all go ?
I think people are confused as to how much a billion is and just spraying the term round without thinking
 
harpo_72 said:
But it won't because the unions fund Labour, they pay and they want their candidate at the wheel .. you will only change it by changing the funding mechanism.
Both Tory and labour have always had financial support from people who want to control them in some way, and there lies the issue.

So in the end you will get the same thing but with a different name and the bits that you are told to be offended about will still be in existence.
Click to expand...

labours funding mainly comes from its members 550,000 more than double that of the Conservatives and from an subs alone 16M i think the unions is around 5 or 6 Mil... its the members who select a leader.. he was elected by the members they wanted a more left wing candidate i'm told by my sorce;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top