2017 general election

First topic message reminder :

Buzz phrases

So we now have the start of the 2017 general election campaign and the buzz phrases have started to come out.

It is likely to be a very dirty campaign with lots of negative Buzz Phrases from all parties and many of these will be designed to stick in the minds of voters to sway them.

We will have the MP's doing the rounds of the TV News shows giving their daily talking points which will be littered the phases given to them by party election coordinators.

Here is the first one I have heard today:

19/04/17...Coalition of Chaos.........Theresa May....repeated on Sky News by Karen Bradley....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAIWHe4XsAMbis1.jpg

Nye Bevan would have liked that!  

I’m certainly never far away from them. As I’ve said before, I haven't ever voted for a winning candidate in a general election and I won’t be doing so this time. In 2015, my local Tory received 32,627 votes, UKIP came second with 7,969 votes, followed by the Lib Dems with 6,647, Labour with 6,499 and the Greens with 2,198.

I said “local Tory”, but that isn’t quite correct. When Francis Maude suddenly decided to stand down shortly before the 2015 election, a company adviser and member of the Countryside Alliance was parachuted in from Buckinghamshire and handed this ‘rotten borough’ on a plate. I’ve never seen him or heard anything about him and wouldn’t recognise him if I saw him in the street. He’s never knocked on my door, but that’s probably just as well and better for my blood pressure.

Our Labour candidate for this election is called Susannah Brady. She was born locally, but of course she doesn’t stand a chance. If he’d still been alive, the Tories could have put up Ian Brady as their candidate here and he’d have won by a landslide. No doubt most of our local pensioners will dutifully trot along to the polling stations and vote to deprive themselves of their winter fuel allowances, the ‘triple lock’ on their pensions, and all but £100,000 worth of their assets should they need care, even in their own homes. That's an awful lot of turkeys wanting to precipitate Christmas.

Theresa May is right to take school meals off primary school pupils – it's their fault we're in this financial situation anyway

From an article by Mark Steel:-

As Conservatives have pointed out, Labour’s manifesto is a pledge to make us all worse off by taking more of our money. This is why every Tory is telling as many people as they can: “They’re going to take your money in tax”. And this is true as Labour are increasing tax rates for the top 5% of earners, and these days almost everybody is in the top 5%.

The Conservatives sometimes argue that even if you don’t earn enough to be in the higher tax bracket, you’re still affected by Labour’s proposals as you might aspire to be in that higher bracket. Similarly the Tories can announce: “YOU will be crippled by Labour’s plans to end rail privatisation, because although you’re a rail passenger, you have the aspiration to become the CEO of a major rail franchise that robs the country of millions of pounds a day. So the last thing you want is an efficient transport system to wreck your hopes and dreams.” They could claim Corbyn is planning to snub you personally, by not attending your state visit. Even though this is a policy specifically aimed at Donald Trump, we should all get angry about it, because any of us might end up as a deranged sociopathic American president, and then we’d be treated just as badly.

In any case, why should the small number of children at infant school get taxpayers’ money for frivolities such as food, when it was them that caused the banking crash in the first place, with their reckless lending and borrowing five years before they were born? And this is the sort of measure that, says the PM, will wipe out our deficit by 2025, only ten years after they promised to wipe it out last time. It’s this sort of common sense, that enables the Conservatives to propose cutting the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance, but unlike Labour’s tax plans, this only affects the minority of people who are old or have relations who are old or might one day be old or care in any way about the old and we can’t in any way divert the country’s hard-earned resources to tiny cliques like that.

For the whole article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-conservative-manifesto-jeremy-corbyn-taxation-winter-fuel-allowance-a7743311.html

I do find Mark Steel a comfort these days

A sliver of comfort from an unexpected source is in today's Sunday Times business-section:
"May's hardline approach will harm business and the economy". (David Smith, Economic Outlook)

The polls have become closer recently, so we can expect the smearing of Jeremy Corbyn to increase. I didn't see it, but I understand that Sophy Ridge on Sky was leading the way this morning. For the record, here is a summary of Corbyn's involvement in Irish politics:-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAWYlIxXkAAentc.png

So much for Tory liberality.  

A qualified nutritionist explained on Radio4 Today that the real figure - assuming a 20% takeup by children eligible - ought to be £1.25 a head.

The breathtaking analysis of that figure is 25p for food and £1 for human adults to serve it.

How did we get ourselves to such a point ?

human labour is expensive now housing is so dear

"The cost of housing" is perhaps not a perfect fit on this particular thread, though it's likely to be a factor in the way people vote. But it's only one ingredient of the cost of labour. Tax and NI increase the price an employer needs to charge for goods or services, as do social laws ensuring holidays, sickness and maternity pay plus pension contributions.

Those of us who agree totally with those requirements, for work to have dignity, can't pretend there is no consequence. Nevertheless, some Company Directors are abusing their position. Nobody is "worth" an annual bonus in the £millions.

Don't worry about stuff like that.  Just ***king elect me you stupid proles!

"Both parties imply that they will do things they have done before, but with different results. Each Party, however, tends to get a turn only when the other's shortcomings have been fully exposed."
Deborah Orr, The Guardian

It’s quite in order for anyone to blame Theresa May’s policies – both when she was home secretary and since she became PM – for increasing the risk of terror attacks like the one which we’ve just seen in Manchester. Inadequate security provision and a foreign policy which provokes, and gives some warped justification to, so-called Islamic terrorists, must be factors in precipitating such hideous events, but we must remember that there is a third factor which we can do little about. Some fanatics just want to kill or at least subjugate all ‘kaffir’, namely those who don’t subscribe to their ideology.  

We’re in a general election campaign and the only thing which is ‘outrageous’ is the Tory attempt to shut down any discussion about national security and foreign policy, saying that “now is not the time”. It’s hard to imagine any time that is more pertinent.

On 20 May 2015, the BBC reported that Theresa May had accused the Police Federation of “crying wolf” about the impact of financial cuts, and she said more savings would have to be made in the next five years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32806520

At that same Police Federation conference, May was warned by a Manchester police officer that cuts increased the risk of a terror attack in his city. He told her: "Intelligence has dried up. There aren't local officers, they don't know what's happening. They're all reactive, there's no proactive policing locally. That is the reality ma'am. Neighbourhood policing is critical to dealing with terrorism. We run the risk here of letting communities down, putting officers at risk and ultimately risking national security, and I would ask you to seriously consider the budget and the level of cuts over the next five years."

May, who was at the time home secretary, told officers that budgets would continue to be restricted. At the time the police had seen a cut in funding of 18% with the loss of more than 17,000 police officers nationwide.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-warned-by-manchester-police-that-cuts-risked-terror-attack-2017-5

"Security" suddenly coming front-and-centre tilted the election campaign for all parties, but that apart, May's cool assumption that voters will choose her to negotiate Brexit over Corbyn has just been holed beneath the water-line by Chancellor Merkel's comment that Europe could no longer trust the US or Britain.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/merkel-says-eu-cannnot-fully-rely-on-the-us-or-uk/ar-BBBBro0?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp

Corbyn is right: of course Manchester was linked to British foreign policy

From an article by Simon Jenkins:-

Whenever Blair, Brown and Cameron struggled to explain why British blood and finance had to go on toppling regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, they were explicit: it was “to prevent terrorism in the streets of Britain”. The reason was given over and over again: to suppress militant Islam. When that policy clearly leads to an increase in Islamist terrorism, we are entitled to agree with Corbyn that it has “simply failed”. Regimes were indeed toppled. Tens of thousands died, many of them civilians every bit as innocent as Manchester’s victims. Terrorism has not stopped.

Whenever al-Qaida or Isis seek to explain their atrocities, reference is usually made to British intervention and the military killing of innocent Muslims. It is mendacious to try to sanitise our overheated and jingoistic response to domestic terrorism by pretending that it is unrelated to British foreign policy. It was we who made the link, and before the terrorists did.

Of course this does not exonerate anyone. Yes, militant Islamists are seeking to subvert the west’s sense of security and its liberal values. Yes, the west’s continued bombing of markets, hospitals, weddings and villages is ‘accidental’ – albeit inevitable, given the nature of modern air war. But we used the language of ‘shock and awe’ in bombing Baghdad in 2003. We gave the current era of Islamist terrorism a cause, a reason, an excuse, however perverted. We committed armed aggression against sovereign peoples who had not attacked us.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-british-foreign-policy

was it as bad, do you think, as the enormous gaffe the Tories made when they costed breakfast for a child at 6.8p ?

Just a shame that nobody prepared Mr Corbyn for the grilling by an interviewer on "Woman's Hour" with a background of having been Woman's Editor of The Telegraph, and currently contributing to The Times.

You can't pick your enemies, but sometimes the battlefield is discretionary. May's advisors have assistance from millionaire Tory donors, so Labour consultants need to be more focussed.

True - but I gather the little discomfort is now being celebrated as it created an opportunity to rehearse the details in rather more detail -after looking it up on his Ipad he was able to read out the whole excerpt - if he'd known the answer the interview would have rolled on.

I suspect, despite the current apparent truce, there are still those at Labour headquarters who hold to the original brief 'get rid of Corbyn' - bureaucrats can be very slow to react to changing circumstances

It is still the British people who will actually decide on June 8, not the political professionals. Common sense may prevail - you won't find anyone who doesn't think they've got that.

As Green Party MEP Molly Scott Cato has tweeted: “It is absurd to suggest remembering numbers is a test of leadership or an indication of ability to manage the economy. Focus on what matters.” When Theresa May or Philip Hammond screw up on figures – 7p for a school breakfast or a £20 billion underestimate of the cost of HS2 – it doesn’t lead all the news bulletins. And as John McDonnell told an election rally today: “The only numbers in the Tory manifesto are the page numbers”. May doesn't have to remember any numbers because the Tory manifesto hasn't been costed. She just expects a blank cheque from voters.

This was posted on Facebook by someone called Rachel Avery and then re-posted by others on Twitter:-

"Say Jeremy Corbyn had been the home secretary for six years, during which time he slashed some 20,000 police jobs, taking us back to 1970s levels of per capita policing.

Let’s say he also slashed the UK Border Agency budget so that over a million people per month were coming and going through UK airports without being properly checked.

Let’s say by virtue of an extremely self-serving EU referendum non-campaign he managed to get into 10 Downing Street, where he kept up his agenda of cutting the UK security services and border agency.

Then there’s a home-grown terrorist attack by a known Islamist fanatic in a city where Corbyn had cut the police budget by £157 million.

Let’s say Jeremy Corbyn ‘lost’ files on an internet paedophile ring.

Let’s say he wanted to take the homes from the elderly.

Let’s say he cut 30% of your disability benefit.

Let’s say he signed an arms deal with the ISIS-funding Saudis worth millions.

Let’s say he wanted to take away your child’s free school meal.

Let’s say he forced NHS staff to use foodbanks.

Let’s say he made so many cuts to the NHS that people are suffering waiting for ambulances and A&E doctors.

Let’s say he went against doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters and the armed forces.

Let’s say he took away funding for university for upcoming doctors and nurses.

Let’s say after all these cuts there’s still a deficit and he’d missed every target he’d set himself for reducing it.

What would you have said to Jeremy Corbyn under these circumstances? And why are they not saying these things about Theresa May and the Tories right now?"

I'm saying them, but due to a parental oversight I don't seem to own a national newspaper.

At the end of the BBC debate, it was time to vote off the weakest link:-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBLaFkrXUAAGYES.jpg

tried to post video of may not answering questions put by national journalists.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-awkward-bbc-election_uk_592fd53de4b09ec37c31cff4?utm_hp_ref=uk

Presumably the Tory Party will not try a "Presidential-style" election-campaign again.
If you're going to launch a personality cult, it's best to use a candidate who has one. (Personality, that is).

If you're going to launch a personality cult, it's best to use a candidate who has one. (Personality, that is).

good point - having said which, I'm feeling a bit concerned for her - yesterday, she seemed close to tears on camera - she seems fragile and even broken - obviously not up to the job - surely it's cruel to keep her in place

Perhaps that is indeed the Master Plan - the sympathy vote?

well, I'm not stupid enough to vote Tory because I'm sorry for her - but she is just like all the other essentially useless female representatives the Tory boys put up to answer questions when they don't know what they're doing.

Beginning to think there's actually no real talent in the party

Oh, but surely there's the young and thrusting Liz Truss, or Andrea "Mother" Leadsom?

After supporting the Liberal Democrats in two of the last four general elections, ‘The Guardian’ has this time declared for Labour:-

"The Conservatives do not deserve our vote. Their claim that they will help people and promise to raise the living wage, build affordable housing and deal with spiralling energy prices is not matched by their policies. Their uncosted manifesto is a diversion from their consistently callous and negligent record in office. This has seen food banks become a feature of our communities, seen school budgets cut for the first time for 20 years, and left patients waiting longer than ever in hospitals that are mired in deficits. Tory economics has created a new working class of people with jobs but in poverty. Instead of being serious about rebuilding the public finances without loading the costs on to the poor, the Tory Party wants to bring back foxhunting. The Conservatives have also opted for an overtly hardline approach on Brexit – driving their support with a false claim that Britain is under attack by either internal or external enemies. It is the intertwining of austerity with a hard Brexit that renders them unfit for office.

The Tory plan to win the election was for it to be a presidential contest. The idea was to present Theresa May as a strong leader who would be better at getting a good deal for Britain from Brussels than Jeremy Corbyn. She chose to hold an unnecessary election for which there was no appetite. Her campaign has been grimly negative and entirely joyless. She is reluctant to risk much interaction with voters and is evasive with journalists. Her failure to call out Donald Trump’s destructive impulse over the climate change accord speaks volumes.

As Mrs May’s credibility on the campaign has withered, Mr Corbyn’s has grown. He has been energetic and effective on the stump, comfortable in his own skin and in the presence of others. The campaign itself has been unexpectedly strategic, based on a manifesto which is a genuine attempt to address a failing social and economic model. Labour has set the terms of the political debate: most notably with a Keynesian response of increasing public investment, and increasing public spending financed by higher taxes, to stimulate the economy so that the country ends up wealthier than anything proposed under Tory plans."

For the whole editorial:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour

The depressing reality is that Income Tax, NI, VAT, Insurance tax, Council Tax, Airline tax, Fuel Duty, Alcohol Duty and Vehicle tax grab half of what we each earn.

For the months of January through to July you can say with accuracy that you're working for the Government when you get paid.

Extracts from today's editorial column in 'The Observer':-

Theresa May’s campaign has underlined how undeserving she is of the country’s support. She called this election on specious grounds. She has provided no further detail about her Brexit negotiating strategy, sticking to her disastrous mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal. Immigration control will be her top priority, even though securing it will mean leaving the single market, jeopardising everything else voters care deeply about – jobs and growth and the future of our public services.

Her manifesto is thin on detail and May is no stranger to adopting contradictory rhetoric and positions. She claims to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Yet her government has cut taxes for businesses and the more affluent while imposing cruel cuts that leave disabled people and the poorest working families thousands of pounds a year worse off. From air pollution to child obesity, she has put big corporate interests ahead of the health of the nation. Her support for grammar schools shows how she privileges personal belief over empirical evidence in how best to improve the life chances of children from poorer backgrounds.

May has provided little evidence that calling this election wasn’t just an opportunistic land grab in the face of an opposition in disarray. Far from appearing “strong and stable”, the alacrity with which she performed her social care U-turn suggested a fragile insecurity. Our friends across Europe will have noted how easily she buckled under pressure.

There have been vicious and personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, a dismally predictable offering from her chief boot boy, Lynton Crosby. Whatever the election result, May will emerge as a diminished figure, both politically and personally. In contrast, Corbyn’s campaign has exceeded expectations. It has been positive and competently run. Corbyn has come across as composed and energetic, and he should be commended for the dignified way in which he has dealt with an immensely hostile onslaught from the right-wing tabloids. His high levels of support among young people show that his ability to engage and enthuse a new generation of voters was not limited to his leadership campaigns.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/04/observer-view-general-election-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn

Corbyn has done a very good job and I admit he has surprised me.

The evil May will win , but hopefully with a tiny majority which will add to the pressure on her which she so richly deserves...

I'm not stupid enough to vote Tory because I'm sorry for her

boatlady. I think you’re probably kinder and more tolerant than me, because I don’t in any way feel sorry for Theresa May. In fact, she frightens me because she has many of the personality traits of a budding dictator. She has shown contempt for Parliament by trying to by-pass it when triggering Article 50, contempt for judges by not defending them when they uphold and interpret the law, and now contempt for the whole electorate in this election campaign. The 48% of us who voted Remain are now seen as "saboteurs" by May and her toxic tabloid supporters. She called an unnecessary election, offered a vague and uncosted manifesto, refused to debate, largely avoided the voters, and spent much time smearing Jeremy Corbyn and lying about Labour’s policies. (For example, Labour does not advocate “uncontrolled immigration”, as she claims, but “managed migration”.)

Theresa May earned herself the nickname ‘Submarine May’ with many Tories because when the going gets rough, she disappears from sight for a while. That was how she crawled into Downing Street. I predicted on Twitter in May last year that it Brexit happened and Cameron’s position became untenable, she was best placed to replace him because she hadn’t offended many people. She nominally supported Remain and campaigned for it occasionally, but she certainly wasn’t prominent. I’ve read on one of these threads how there was speculation back in 2013 that she was plotting with Hammond to overthrow the ‘posh boys’, and eventually she got the job she so desperately wanted. She’s clearly way out of her depth, and if she can’t cope she should quit, but of course she has delusions of grandeur like so many dictators.

I feel sorry for disabled people having their benefits cut, for ex-servicemen starving to death, for the homeless, for four million children in poverty and for the infants among them who she seeks to deprive of their hot lunches. I feel sorry for parents who work long hours in poorly-paid jobs and get into debt because they can’t make ends meet. I feel sorry for the nurses and doctors who are trying to keep the NHS functioning when it’s being undermined by May and her government, and for the teachers who are trying to do their jobs when schools are being starved of cash. I feel sorry for the foxes who will be ripped to pieces if May gets her way, and I’m disgusted that she has dropped the promise to ban the trade in ivory.  Just when I thought Cameron was the worst PM that we’d had in my lifetime, along comes May. No, I don’t feel sorry for her, only for her victims.

I suppose I would not want to disagree with you to any extent on anything you have said, Ivan - but I do have the feeling that the egregious Theresa may be merely a cats paw for the interests of 'big business' - we never know what happens behind closed doors, but seeing her with her husband I often have a sense that she is firmly under the thumb ( I also had that feeling when I saw her holding Trump's hand like a call girl at the end of a successful transaction).

I guess I feel that her career has been maybe planned for her and that she has less choice than we might think about the ways she behaves. She is clearly completely out of her depth and on occasion has looked near to tears.

It's interesting to me that on two occasions during this campaign, when she looked to be 'wobbling' in the polls, a convenient terrorist attack took everyone's eye off the ball for a moment - I'm sure she didn't arrange these events, but she has certainly profited from them - and I sometimes wonder if someone arranged them for her