Election 2019 - Hide in a fridge to win - The Bear and Badger

Paul the sparky

It's always the big telly too. It's not even a meme, that's what you hear from people working in council houses.

poprock

Again, because it’s visible. Tempy’s on to something there.

Tempy

Big Telly is cheap as shit as well

poprock

Yep. Big != good.

hunk

It's a divide and conquer thing.
Let the people at the bottom of the barrel fight for scraps, it keeps them distracted and makes them easier to control with rightwing propaganda (hi tabloids). Hopefully they won't notice all the tax break policies allowing the 1% to rake in millions.

If they do notice you just tell them the ceo's deserve it for working very, very, very hard. Your kids should aspire to be like them. Maybe next generation perhaps should social and education policies allow it.

RamSteelwood

@Sparks

good stuff. I'm similar...i do little things to keep my guilt at bay a little, but ultimately i'm not 'good enough' to change the world. I get narked when the wife chucks a food tin in the rubbish bin instead of rinsing it and putting it in the recycling, and i've got solar panels so i don't feel too guilty watching a big screen tv or using the tumble dryer when it's cold and wet outside.
It would be nice to think if everyone made some little changes it would have a big impact overall, but I'm also not about spend my time marching the streets either.

Brooks

So it turns out Media Studies, far from being a mickey mouse subject, is in fact incredibly important for negotiating the 21st century. Amazing!

Brooks

I wouldn't fret about marching, it doesn't work anyway. Just more Content for the Channels.

poprock

Brooks wrote:

So it turns out Media Studies, far from being a mickey mouse subject, is in fact incredibly important for negotiating the 21st century. Amazing!

Expect the Tories to strike it from the national curriculum tout de suite.

Tempy

Pretty sure i posted in here about media studies a few weeks ago. If i hadn’t sucked a day human being i could have been teaching it to kids

Diluted Dante

Tempy wrote:

Big Telly is cheap as shit as well

This is why this annoys me so much. Peoples concept of a "big TV" seems to be anything more than a 14" VCR combi. I've just found a 32" TV for local pickup for £20. TV is by far the cheapest form of entertainment anyone could get.

This idea that the Labour manifesto was "too much" baffles me. As far as I can tell, people are pissed off at the state of the country. Anyone trying to make it better isn't being realistic, and is talking about magic money trees.

Just have some fucking imagination. The NHS didn't used to exist. Now most of the country can't imagine not having it. 87% of people are proud of this socialist institution. Only the fire services beats it. It comes above the armed forces, in a country that fetishises soldiers.

dynamiteReady

Why do 'misinformation' campaigns appear to be more effective than 'factual' ones?
Why would anyone think that:

- 'Getting Brexit done'

Is so much more inspiring than

- 'Saving the NHS'

Or, how the fuck has everyone managed to forget Grenfell, or the fact that Boris Johnson's private life wouldn't even make him suitable for Jeremy fucking Kyle... Let alone government.

Are the decisive groups, all the undecided and influential voters, really only accessible via targeted ads on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube?

Because I really can't believe that.

LarryDavid

Lots of people refuse to believe the NHS is or was ever in threat. Lefty scaremongering.

monkey

Diluted Dante wrote:

Tempy wrote:

Big Telly is cheap as shit as well

This is why this annoys me so much. Peoples concept of a "big TV" seems to be anything more than a 14" VCR combi. I've just found a 32" TV for local pickup for £20. TV is by far the cheapest form of entertainment anyone could get. This idea that the Labour manifesto was "too much" baffles me. As far as I can tell, people are pissed off at the state of the country. Anyone trying to make it better isn't being realistic, and is talking about magic money trees. Just have some fucking imagination. The NHS didn't used to exist. Now most of the country can't imagine not having it. 87% of people are proud of this socialist institution. Only the fire services beats it. It comes above the armed forces, in a country that fetishises soldiers.

It's the party's job to sell it, not people's job to fill in the blanks. How realistic was the plan though? Nationalise every utility in 5 years, or was it 10? Financed by taking on hundreds of billions in debt (any skimping on this figure fucks your pensions). To a generation that had nationalised industries that weren't great and prone to industrial action. And if everything goes alright, then 20-30 years down the line, cutting the private sector's 2-3% take out of the mix eventually gets you your money back. And this whole restructuring is being overseen by a man who appears incompetent. And he has nothing to say to people to address their concerns that it won't be a massive fuck up.

A lot of this is unnecessary masochism though. Brexit is hardly well thought out is it? If the Tories had lost, somewhere a load of Tories would be going through all the problems they've got. "How do we shed the nasty party image?" "Whither now for Conservatism?". Instead they're in government and not addressing these problems. The main issues for Labour were a) the structural problems Labour have had with it's heartlands for decades, losing Scotland, now losing the former industrial areas of England and Wales and b) the leadership. If both of those were better, Brexit is less of an issue. We may not have even voted for Brexit with a properly functioning Labour party because people would have had a local responsive political solution. 'Take back control' therefore not resonating as much.

Diluted Dante

It's incredibly realistic. Borrowing rates are at record lows. Labours plans would raise tax revenue as well.

Armitage_Shankburn

monkey wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

monkey wrote:

I have now joined Labour so I can vote for whoever sucks Tony Blair's dick the longest.

Monkey announces leadership bid

Spoiler:

badum-tish

#QueerForKeir

At the moment, I don't know enough about Mandy or Long-Bailey... Obviously they have a set of balls for contemplating getting hammered for 5 years straight. I wonder if Starmer is clever enough to have worked out that he needs momentum, the young left, and can build bridges across. I wonder if the working class voters in the red wall need a posh man to vote for. Prisoners of class etc. He could be the best choice.

But an ardent and irredeemable remainer, that could go both ways in 5 years time. Could be a daddy what did you do in the war thing. Could be a rallying figure in hindsight.

All good candidates though. Still thought Pidcock showed the most promise.

Armitage_Shankburn

monkey wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

Tempy wrote:

Big Telly is cheap as shit as well

This is why this annoys me so much. Peoples concept of a "big TV" seems to be anything more than a 14" VCR combi. I've just found a 32" TV for local pickup for £20. TV is by far the cheapest form of entertainment anyone could get. This idea that the Labour manifesto was "too much" baffles me. As far as I can tell, people are pissed off at the state of the country. Anyone trying to make it better isn't being realistic, and is talking about magic money trees. Just have some fucking imagination. The NHS didn't used to exist. Now most of the country can't imagine not having it. 87% of people are proud of this socialist institution. Only the fire services beats it. It comes above the armed forces, in a country that fetishises soldiers.

It's the party's job to sell it, not people's job to fill in the blanks. How realistic was the plan though? Nationalise every utility in 5 years, or was it 10? Financed by taking on hundreds of billions in debt (any skimping on this figure fucks your pensions). To a generation that had nationalised industries that weren't great and prone to industrial action. And if everything goes alright, then 20-30 years down the line, cutting the private sector's 2-3% take out of the mix eventually gets you your money back. And this whole restructuring is being overseen by a man who appears incompetent. And he has nothing to say to people to address their concerns that it won't be a massive fuck up.

A lot of this is unnecessary masochism though. Brexit is hardly well thought out is it? If the Tories had lost, somewhere a load of Tories would be going through all the problems they've got. "How do we shed the nasty party image?" "Whither now for Conservatism?". Instead they're in government and not addressing these problems. The main issues for Labour were a) the structural problems Labour have had with it's heartlands for decades, losing Scotland, now losing the former industrial areas of England and Wales and b) the leadership. If both of those were better, Brexit is less of an issue. We may not have even voted for Brexit with a properly functioning Labour party because people would have had a local responsive political solution. 'Take back control' therefore not resonating as much.

I asked a utility regulator who stood in essence to lose his job over this policy and he said labour could do it in 2 years if they were prepared to pay more than they estimated (which clearly they did as that's just a bargaining position). But what does he know, monkey says it's impossible

Armitage_Shankburn

LarryDavid wrote:

Lots of people refuse to believe the NHS is or was ever in threat. Lefty scaremongering.

That's because it wasn't. The threat is the NHS stays, but it pays more for drugs and more of its service delivery is by private contractors who look to maximise the margins. The clue is in the wording of assurances during the campaign.

LarryDavid

Yeah, it still ‘exists’ but is totally hollowed out and used as a vehicle for healthcare profit making.

monkey

I didn't say it couldn't be done. I asked how realistic was Corbyn's plan to do it. In response to Dante saying "anyone who tries to fix society is accused of being unrealistic." Imagine you don't care about any of this, you've heard the tabloid and Tory attack lines about wasting money and wrecking the economy. But you're your own person with your own mind and waiting to hear what Labour have got to say. Then up pops Corbyn on your tv. Evading, prevaricating, with no reassurances that he takes the issue of public debt seriously. Or even understands what the problem might be. From the Andrew Neil interview.

AN: And then there’s the amount you’re going to borrow. You intend to borrow hundreds of billions for investment. You’re going to borrow hundreds of mil- hundred, a couple of hundred million more for nationalisation. You’re going to borrow billions for the green deal. Borrow, borrow. Is there no limit to what can go on the Corbyn credit card?
JC: Well, first of all for nationalisation you don’t borrow. What you do is change share ownership for government bonds and it becomes an investment.
AN: You – you’re creating more government debt.
JC: No.
AN: You’re creating debt.
JC: If you take over a company, say a water company, and you exchange those shares for government bonds, you then own the water company, the public as a whole, and it’d be run very differently. And the income from the water comes to –
AN: I understand that, I’m just –
JC: – comes to the public purse.
AN: To acquire these companies you have to issue more debt.
JC: You change –
AN: Up to about 200 billion.
JC: You exchange it for government bonds which obviously –
AN: But you don’t.
JC: – do attract an interest rate, but they also – it attracts a benefit, and I think you’ll find that ultimately it becomes cost neutral.
AN: Is there any limit to the Corbyn credit card?
JC: We are not going to willy nilly borrow. What we want to do is deal with the worst aspects of what’s happened with austerity, the worst aspects of poverty in Britain, and on public ownership we’ve made it very clear that those natural monopolies like Royal Mail –
AN: Sure.
JC: – like the train operating companies and like the water industry will be taken into public ownership. As will the national grid, to ensure that we can get development and investment in the national grid to ensure that the green – that the green energy revolution can sustain itself.
AN: You will have to borrow for all that investment as well, because it will now be on the government’s balance sheet. And then, at the weekend, you said you were going to compensate the Waspi women. And they’re the ones who feel they’ve been hard done by on state pensions. But I don’t see – I’ve got your grey book here – the costings for it. I don’t see any sign of how you’re going to pay for that.
JC: I’ve got a grey book here if you want –
AN: No, I’ve got yours, it’s fine. Where – where do you pay for it?
JC: It’s, first of all let’s deal with the issue.
AN: No, I know the issue and I understand the issue.
JC: But you might but I’m not sure all our viewers will.
AN: But I’d like to know – let’s assume it’s a great issue and you’re right. How do you pay for it?
JC: It’s a moral case. Those women –
AN: Yeah. How do you pay for it?
JC: Those women were short-changed by government. Short-changed in 2011 by the change in the pension rate. I met a group –
AN: I’m accepting that Mr Corbyn. I’m asking you – it costs 60 billion, how do you pay for it?
JC: Can I explain why?
AN: No, I’d like you to explain how you pay for it.
JC: Let me explain why.
AN: Explain how you’ll pay for it. That’s my question.
JC: Let me explain why.
AN: Explain how you’ll pay for it.
JC: We’ll pay for it because it has to be paid for.
AN: But how?
JC: It has to be paid for. It’s a moral debt.
AN: How will you pay for it?
JC: It’s a moral debt that’s owed to those women.
AN: Will you borrow?
JC: Often between 30 and £50,000 has been wrongly taken from them. And so –
AN: I understand that’s your case, that’s not what I’m arguing with you about. I’m arguing to say how will you find the money. Now, will you borrow for that?
JC: Had a court case gone the other way the government would now be having to do it. What we’re saying is we will do it. We will do it by paying for it from government reserves and if necessary, ‘cause it’s not all going to be paid in one year, we will have to borrow in the long term. But I’ll just say –
AN: You will borrow for it?
JC: Can I finish? Andrew –
AN: But you would borrow for current spending …
JC: Andrew, I realise your determination to find out about this. Can I explain?
AN: well I would like to find out if you’d answer the question. You would borrow the 60 billion?
JC: Andrew, it’s going to be paid for to a specific cohort of women.
AN: I know who it’s going to be paid for, Mr Corbyn, it’s £60 billion. It’s not in your Grey Book so are you going to borrow for it? It’s the only way you can pay for it?
JC: We will raise the money for it either from reserves or if necessary –
AN: We haven’t got 60 billion of reserves, Mr Corbyn.
JC: Andrew, as I was explaining, it doesn’t all get paid in one year.
AN: Okay.
JC: It is over some years that it’s paid for. And I just think we should just think for a moment. This is a group of women –
AN: You’ve given that case, Mr Corbyn, and there’s other things I want to go onto. You’ve given that case.
JC: – wrongly treated and we will make sure they are compensated
AN: You just can’t tell me how you pay for it?
JC: I can. I’ve just told you. That we will pay for it through either government reserves or if necessary borrow for it.
AN: Where does the government have 60 billion in reserves?
JC: I didn’t say it did have 60 billion in reserves
AN: All right, well it comes out of about, what 6-7 billion a year? Where do we have these reserves?
JC: It doesn’t all have to be paid in one year.
N; No, it has to be paid over a period of time. What is the size of our reserves at the moment?
JC: It’s not – it’s nowhere near that figure of course.
AN: right, exactly.
JC: You’re right on that but it doesn’t all have to be paid in one year and it will be an additional cost that should have been factored into budgets in 2011 when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats got together to take this – got together
AN: I want to move on.

hunk

LarryDavid wrote:

Yeah, it still ‘exists’ but is totally hollowed out and used as a vehicle for healthcare profit making.

'Starvin' the Beast' as the cons like to say.
Make it so that the department becomes totally disfunctional deprived of funding (too expensive!). Privatisation will become the only viable option eventually. It's for the best no?

Armitage_Shankburn

That amounts to saying "Corbyn was shit on Andrew Neil so the policy was shit". Obviously I want a trash talking redpilled leader but at the very least I hope a combative response would get that across. Highlight the debt taken on bailing out the banks, the amount spent on quantitative easing in real terms, also to the banks, and make clear that this has not benefited people's budgets at home..my policy would. Trains on time, affordable, greener than roads. Everyone benefits. It happens in France. It's the Tories that privatised the railways and then started spending on them ten times what was spent on national rail. Cheap money - borrowing at close to 0% - is available only for the bankers..you at home pay at least 5.

It's about selling the policy, I agree. It's about being willing to lie and dissemble. But in the real world, the policy is practicable and much needed. Also in the real world, when you know a policy is gonna be fought tooth and nail in the lord's and courts, you need it in your manifesto. You must have it in there. Any leadership contestant that starts talking about a "shopping list" with a hint of dropping anything except free broadband, should not get a vote from anyone hoping for a real change imo.

monkey

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

That amounts to saying "Corbyn was shit on Andrew Neil so the policy was shit". Obviously I want a trash talking redpilled leader but at the very least I hope a combative response would get that across. Highlight the debt taken on bailing out the banks, the amount spent on quantitative easing in real terms, also to the banks, and make clear that this has not benefited people's budgets at home..my policy would. Trains on time, affordable, greener than roads. Everyone benefits. It happens in France. It's the Tories that privatised the railways and then started spending on them ten times what was spent on national rail. Cheap money - borrowing at close to 0% - is available only for the bankers..you at home pay at least 5. It's about selling the policy, I agree. It's about being willing to lie and dissemble. But in the real world, the policy is practicable and much needed. Also in the real world, when you know a policy is gonna be fought tooth and nail in the lord's and courts, you need it in your manifesto. You must have it in there. Any leadership contestant that starts talking about a "shopping list" with a hint of dropping anything except free broadband, should not get a vote from anyone hoping for a real change imo.

He was shit across multiple media which stopped the policies from being taken seriously. That's it really. But yeah, I don't want nationalisation to be abandoned. Rail is desperate for it. And probably energy can only be radically overhauled that way. I don't know. Even the FT said that the cost was likely to be nearer to Labour's £60 bn than the CBI's £200 bn figure.

Armitage_Shankburn

The cost might be 100-120 BN if we wanted it done quick, less if we are happy to fight in the courts and international arbitration after the fact (but could then rise further).

davyK

Addressing how much things cost for Labour policies should have been made clearer - and with a dose of reality. Chasing the rich for tax will only have limited, if any, success. Those in the middle would end up paying more tax but at least you would then know if voters have the stomach for equitable service provision and nationalised infrastructure.

Corbyn didn't have some figures in that Neill interview about contributions of the rich - figures he really should have had.

Being woolly about cost is just playing to the type described by Conservatives. It isn't as if Labour can get crunchers to work it out.

monkey

There's so many things he should have done. Shot down that £200bn figure instantly. "No, it's £60 billion to buy profitable industries and provide them with investment, that will then start generating revenue, paying for itself after x years and then providing an estimated £x income to the treasury every year after. The Conservatives have added £800 billion to national debt since 2010. And all they've got to show for it is broken public services and people paying exorbitant prices for their utilities with the profits funding nationalised programs in other countries."

monkey

I honestly think that if RLB wins and Milne stays, much of the party will go and form a new one. They’ve got 5 years to establish themselves. Whether it will work is another matter. But they’re not going to go through this again.

GooberTheHat

dynamiteReady wrote:

Why do 'misinformation' campaigns appear to be more effective than 'factual' ones?
Why would anyone think that:

- 'Getting Brexit done'

Is so much more inspiring than

- 'Saving the NHS'

Or, how the fuck has everyone managed to forget Grenfell, or the fact that Boris Johnson's private life wouldn't even make him suitable for Jeremy fucking Kyle... Let alone government.

Are the decisive groups, all the undecided and influential voters, really only accessible via targeted ads on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube?

Because I really can't believe that.

I posted about that last week. 2 secs.

hunk

The undecided voters are much easier to identify and target via targeted ads over social media/web browsing. Except only the right are exploiting this tactic.

Paul the sparky

My short take on that. They work by playing on things that trigger the strongest emotional response, anger and fear.

"People from distant lands that don't look like you or speak your language are going to move in next door and take your job off you" work well. You can't really do the same thing with stuff like "Wouldn't it be great if we renationalise some stuff and pump the profits into making the service better?" because there isn't the same strong emotional response.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories