The 2019 General Election

[cupid_stunt]

The anti-Semitism row is back in the news.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has supported the Chief Rabbi over the anti-Semitism row, as he said British Jews feel a "deep sense of fear".

After the Chief Rabbi warned the soul of the nation would be at stake if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the General Election, Justin Welby said his intervention to make "such an unprecedented statement" ought to "alert us to the deep sense of insecurity and fear felt by many British Jews.

General election 2019: Archbishop of Canterbury supports Chief Rabbi over anti-Semitism row, saying Jews feel 'deep sense of fear' '- latest news

 

[chilango]

The scenes if having lost his seat, he then failed to win a safe by-election...

 

[Cid]

Well as you were able to find it, can you point out where the figure of 200% comes from and the context please?

The copy I've just checked seems to have that bit printed white on white

Under the homelessness bit of housing:

We will bring in a new national levy on second homes used as holiday homes to help deal with the homelessness crisis, so that those who have done well from the housing market pay a bit more to help those with no home.

No figures I can see... though given the language I can see how it would be double council tax. But it sounds entirely reasonable. Most of their housing policy does.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Well as you were able to find it, can you point out where the figure of 200% comes from and the context please?

The copy I've just checked seems to have that bit printed white on white

Under the homelessness bit of housing:

No figures I can see... though given the language I can see how it would be double council tax. But it sounds entirely reasonable. Most of their housing policy does.

As well as being widely reported, it's in their funding document.

Second homes tax

This is an annual levy on second homes that are used as holiday homes equivalent to 200% of the current council tax bill for the property. Based on the following sources and work from the House of Commons Library we estimate it could currently raise up to £560m a year:

Page 39 - https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change-1.pdf

 

[strung out]

Interesting goings on in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Lord Buckethead is standing, but has been forced to change his name to Count Binface after a copyright dispute. The Official Monster Raving Loony Party are also standing a candidate under the name of Lord Buckethead, although his identity is unclear.

 

[andysays]

No, the PM has to be in the Commons.

Lords can be in the cabinet, but not be PM.

The Tories have previously had an ex-lord as leader and PM, Douglas Home in the 50's. He resigned his peerage and was elected as an MP.

 

[Cid]

As well as being widely reported, it's in their funding document.



Page 39 - https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change-1.pdf

Either way it’s a perfectly reasonable policy.

 

[strung out]

Lords can be in the cabinet, but not be PM.

The Tories have previously had an ex-lord as leader and PM, Douglas Home in the 50's. He resigned his peerage and was elected as an MP.

Another piece of trivia: Winston Churchill was Prime Minister for 5 months without being leader of the Conservatives in 1940.

 

[Spandex]

Labour have the biggest spending plans by a long shot.

View attachment 191044

Hang on... what happened to all those tens of billions of spending promises the Conservatives have made over the past few weeks? The ones that led to loads of 'whoever you vote for austerity is over' comment pieces? The Tories sneak their manifesto out on a Sunday afternoon and suddenly pooof all those promises have dissapeared and we're back to 'oh noes, look how much Labour want to spend'. All they've committed to is ongoing austerity. £2.9 billion might sound a lot on it's own, but in the context of Government spending of £821 billion this year it's nothing. In fact the Labour spending is only an 11% increase, which hardly sounds mad when you consider this is after 10 years of cuts to spending.

And how has austerity worked out over the last decade? The ruin it's caused should be obvious to anyone, but it was supposed to be all about clearing the nation's 'unsustainable' debts. And how's that gone? In 2010 the UK national debt was £1011 billion. This year it's £1803 billion. So austerity has been an abject failure on it's own terms.

Fuck austerity and fuck the Conservatives and fuck that lying weasle Johnson.

 

[Pickman's model]

Hang on... what happened to all those tens of billions of spending promises the Conservatives have made over the past few week? The ones that led to loads of 'whoever you vote for austerity is over' comment pieces? The Tories sneak their manifesto out on a Sunday afternoon and suddenly pooof all those promises have dissapeared and we're back to 'oh noes, look how much Labour want to spend'. All they've committed to is ongoing austerity. £2.9 billion might sound a lot on it's own, but in the context of Government spending of £821 billion this year it's nothing. In fact the Labour spending is only an 11% increase, which hardly sounds mad when you consider this is after 10 years of cuts to spending.

And how has austerity worked out over the last decade? The ruin it's caused should be obvious to anyone, but it was supposed to be all about clearing the nation's 'unsustainable' debts. And how's that gone? In 2010 the UK national debt was £1011 billion. This year it's £1803 billion. So austerity has been an abject failure on it's own terms.

Fuck austerity and fuck the Conservatives and fuck that lying weasle Johnson.

as i understand it the tories never intended to cut the national debt but some other more technical deficit which was never properly explained.

 

[cupid_stunt]

as i understand it the tories never intended to cut the national debt but some other more technical deficit which was never properly explained.

Yep. it was the deficit, i.e. amount of borrowing per year, rather than the actual debt itself.



Down from around £150bn in year ending March 2010, to a forecast of £25bn year ending March 2019.

 

[flypanam]

The anti-Semitism row is back in the news.

Unusul for Welby, he normally speaks up for the souls of oil industry executives. Getting to season that any slur will do.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yep. it was the deficit, i.e. amount of borrowing per year, rather than the actual debt itself.

View attachment 191072

Down from around £150bn in year ending March 2010, to a forecast of £25bn year ending March 2019.

What about off-balance sheet private finance shenanigans though?

 

[cupid_stunt]

What about off-balance sheet private finance shenanigans though?

Fuck knows how much is owed under PFI, but I remember reading they had reduced the number of new ones, and I am sure they have been abolished now.

ETA:

Controversial PFI and PF2 contracts, under which private companies provide public services and infrastructure, are to be abolished in the wake of the collapse of construction firm Carillion.

Chancellor Philip Hammond said doing away with the public-private partnerships, which have been heavily criticised for failing to deliver value for money, showed the government was “putting another legacy of Labour behind us”.

The contracts were first introduced by John Major’s Conservative government in the 1990s but were significantly expanded under Tony Blair.

Hammond abolishes PFI contracts for new infrastructure projects

ETA 2 -

There are around 700 active PFI and PF2 deals, which the government estimates will cost the taxpayer £199bn by the 2040s.

£199bn.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What about off-balance sheet private finance shenanigans though?

Exactly this. It matters not just what the debt is, but to whom it is owed, what the average maturity length is, and what is owned by the state as a result of the debt - and so doesn't have to be rented from a private owner. On its own, the headline figure of national debt is meaningless.

Last I looked, the 'to whom is it owed' question wasn't so alarming (mostly to ourselves), the maturity date was pretty good (14 years), but the 'what is owned by the state as a result' question is a problem - not much, basically, about half of what is owned by the French state, for instance. That's a potential source of both cost and weakness, quite aside from the issue that it means of course that more is owned privately by rich people who make a profit from their ownership.

 

[brogdale]

What about off-balance sheet private finance shenanigans though?

Andrew McGettigan's LRB piece from September (Fiscal illusions) is well worth the (longish) read if you can get around the £wall.

 

[bluescreen]

No, the PM has to be in the Commons.

Ultimately, this erosion of power led to the Parliament Act 1911, which marginalised the Lords' role in the legislative process and gave further weight to the convention that had developed over the previous century that a prime minister cannot sit in the House of Lords.

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

And we all know how much the current Tory party respects parliamentary convention...

 

[brogdale]

And we all know how much the current Tory party respects parliamentary convention...

If blustercunt lost in U&SR he'd probably declare himself King.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

I cringed so hard I broke a rib

 

[SpackleFrog]

I cringed so hard I broke a rib

Jesus Christ.

 

[maomao]

I cringed so hard I broke a rib

It's man dem not dem man innit or am I as out of touch as Pob?

 

[binka]

If the Tories have some kind of working majority, I'd expect a sitting Tory MP in a safe seat to step aside for Boris in a by-election. Anything else and it should mean Boris resigning, and another Tory leadership election.

I reckon there's no chance of that happening, a lot of Tory MPs hate him and if he delivered a majority but lost his own seat he'll have served his purpose and they'd get rid

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's man dem not dem man innit or am I as out of touch as Pob?

I think I'm more out of touch than either of you as I have no idea what man dem (or dem man) means.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think I'm more out of touch than either of you as I have no idea what man dem (or dem man) means.

Nick Clegg rather than Jo Swinson

 

[maomao]

I think I'm more out of touch than either of you as I have no idea what man dem (or dem man) means.

Man + them = a plural of man ie. men. From a carribean creole but often heard in teenage Londoners' speech.

 

[Pickman's model]

I reckon there's no chance of that happening, a lot of Tory MPs hate him and if he delivered a majority but lost his own seat he'll have served his purpose and they'd get rid

i think one of them would respond to the offer of a peerage and surrender a seat. but i'd love it if that happened and johnson lost the fucking by-election

 

[redsquirrel]

No, the PM has to be in the Commons.

"further weight to the convention that had developed over the previous century that a prime minister cannot sit in the House of Lords." (my emphasis)
Convention not requirement

Not that it really matters, practically no party would go for a PM in the Lords

 

[Pickman's model]

"further weight to the convention that had developed over the previous century that a prime minister cannot sit in the House of Lords." (my emphasis)
Convention not requirement

yeh the nineteenth century is replete with peers becoming pm

 

[chilango]

"further weight to the convention that had developed over the previous century that a prime minister cannot sit in the House of Lords." (my emphasis)
Convention not requirement

Not that it really matters, practically no party would go for a PM in the Lords

Never underestimate what Johnson might think he can get away with.

 

[maomao]

We'd end up with Gove ffs.