General Election Dec 2019 thread

[clv101]

I think Corbyn will become Prime Minister in all cases where the tories fail to get a majority.

No chance for Corbyn PM if Johnson only loses majority by fewer than 20 seats... There'll be some form of weak coalition and another election within 12 months.

[Little John]

Labour's manifesto makes it quite plain that the Brexit people voted for...

Labour's manifesto just turned this election into something much bigger than brexit.

...namely to regain full sovereignty over borders, judiciary and legislature - would not be available in any second referendum. Instead, people would be presented with "Remain" or "Remain In All But Name".

I don't agree, but it will certainly look like that to anybody who really is hoping for a big trade deal with the US.

Finally, much of the proposed nationalizations Labour are wanking on about would be illegal under existing and upcoming EU legislation. They will know this.

It's bullshit with pretty ribbons on it. But it is still bullshit.

It's the most radical manifesto of any major party since 1945, and I suspect it is going to be very popular. The response to it so far has been very muted. I don't think the tories know how to attack it, because it pre-empts their normal line of attack. It's so far outside "acceptable economics" that attacking it from the point of view of acceptable economics won't work.

The tories are going to lose this election.

Bullshit. Either of the corbyn-worshipping, self-delusional kind or of the just plain disingenuous kind.

The Labour Party claim:

"..We will bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership to end the great privatisation rip-off and save you money on your fares and bills. We will deliver full-fibre broadband free to everybody in every home in our country by creating a new public service, boosting the economy, connecting communities and putting money back in your pocket..."

However, the Labour leadership will know full well the restrictions the EU places on monopolies - including state monopolies.

Whilst nothing in EU rules specifically "prohibits" nationalisation, they do however have significant implications for how nationalised services may be run. The EU also has rules on how much can be nationalised such that no services can ever be 100% public owned. This includes things like rail, mail, or utilites. A market share must be left for competition. In other words, there cannot be monopoly ownership - including by the state.

Under Article 107(I) TFEU, the actions of member states must not "distort competition". Interventions by EU member states in the economy can be ruled unlawful if it can be shown that they use state resources to distort competition, distort trade between member states or give enterprises a selective advantage. Article 87(1) TFEU covers “any aid granted by a member state or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, in so far as it affects trade between member states.�

The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition.

F*cking TTIP by the back door, in other words.

Furthermore, nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analyzed by the judiciary for their “necessity�. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to undermine and even destroy nation state programmes of public ownership.

The legal consensus that EU law really does preclude ‘renationalisation’ is now overwhelming. It's not hard to come to this conclusion. The EU has, after all, written it down for us for God's sake.

Legal scholars regard the jurisprudence surrounding Article 106 as “revolutionary�, since it reverses “the decades-old presumption…that Member States are free in principle to determine their preferred system of property ownership�. Even the Blairite Polly Toynbee endlessly reiterated that EU competition law would make NHS privatisation irreversible, though curiously this didn’t dampen her pro-EU enthusiasm in the long term.

Furthermore there is precisely zero prospect of Article 106 ever being repealed. To do so would require the common accord of all the governments of the EU Member States. You’d only need a single neoliberal government to veto such a treaty change.

And for good measure, from the 1990s onwards there was a surge of EU liberalisation directives opening up gas, electricity, transport, telecommunications etc to private sector involvement. As I have said, there is precisely zero chance of a Labour government getting these repealed either. To do so would require a “qualified majority� of Member States.

Labour has faced its moment in history. It had a choice of siding with the people, dumping the EU and embarking on a REAL project of socialist renewal of this country based upon the principle of being a sovereign nation state or of capitulating to the neo-liberal globalist agenda.

And they have made their choice.

They have failed this country and its people utterly.

And you are backing these f*cking jokers because your blind, tribal loyalty has turned you into an ideologically possessed moron.

[UndercoverElephant]

Labour's manifesto makes it quite plain that the Brexit people voted for...

Labour's manifesto just turned this election into something much bigger than brexit.

...namely to regain full sovereignty over borders, judiciary and legislature - would not be available in any second referendum. Instead, people would be presented with "Remain" or "Remain In All But Name".

I don't agree, but it will certainly look like that to anybody who really is hoping for a big trade deal with the US.

Finally, much of the proposed nationalizations Labour are wanking on about would be illegal under existing and upcoming EU legislation. They will know this.

It's bullshit with pretty ribbons on it. But it is still bullshit.

It's the most radical manifesto of any major party since 1945, and I suspect it is going to be very popular. The response to it so far has been very muted. I don't think the tories know how to attack it, because it pre-empts their normal line of attack. It's so far outside "acceptable economics" that attacking it from the point of view of acceptable economics won't work.

The tories are going to lose this election.

Bullshit. Either of the corbyn-worshipping, self-delusional kind or of the just plain disingenuous kind.

The Labour Party claim:

"..We will bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership to end the great privatisation rip-off and save you money on your fares and bills. We will deliver full-fibre broadband free to everybody in every home in our country by creating a new public service, boosting the economy, connecting communities and putting money back in your pocket..."

However, the Labour leadership will know full well the restrictions the EU places on monopolies - including state monopolies.

Whilst nothing in EU rules specifically "prohibits" nationalisation, they do however have significant implications for how nationalised services may be run. The EU also has rules on how much can be nationalised such that no services can ever be 100% public owned. This includes things like rail, mail, or utilites. A market share must be left for competition. In other words, there cannot be monopoly ownership - including by the state.

Under Article 107(I) TFEU, the actions of member states must not "distort competition". Interventions by EU member states in the economy can be ruled unlawful if it can be shown that they use state resources to distort competition, distort trade between member states or give enterprises a selective advantage. Article 87(1) TFEU covers “any aid granted by a member state or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, in so far as it affects trade between member states.�

The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition.

F*cking TTIP by the back door, in other words.

Furthermore, nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analyzed by the judiciary for their “necessity�. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to undermine and even destroy nation state programmes of public ownership.

The legal consensus that EU law really does preclude ‘renationalisation’ is now overwhelming. It's not hard to come to this conclusion. The EU has, after all, written it down for us for God's sake.

Legal scholars regard the jurisprudence surrounding Article 106 as “revolutionary�, since it reverses “the decades-old presumption…that Member States are free in principle to determine their preferred system of property ownership�. Even the Blairite Polly Toynbee endlessly reiterated that EU competition law would make NHS privatisation irreversible, though curiously this didn’t dampen her pro-EU enthusiasm in the long term.

Furthermore there is precisely zero prospect of Article 106 ever being repealed. To do so would require the common accord of all the governments of the EU Member States. You’d only need a single neoliberal government to veto such a treaty change.

And for good measure, from the 1990s onwards there was a surge of EU liberalisation directives opening up gas, electricity, transport, telecommunications etc to private sector involvement. As I have said, there is precisely zero chance of a Labour government getting these repealed either. To do so would require a “qualified majority� of Member States.

Labour has faced its moment in history. It has been faced with a choice of siding with the people and dumping the EU and embarking on a REAL project of socialist renewal of this country based upon the principle of being a sovereign nation state or of capitulating to the neo liberal globalist agenda.

And they have made their choice.

They have failed this country and its people utterly.

And you are backing these f*cking jokers because your blind, tribal loyalty has turned you into an ideologically possessed moron.

LOL.

This election is going to be so much fun.

[Little John]

Meanwhile - care to contest any of the above facts?

Or are we just going to be treated to another "lol"?

[UndercoverElephant]

Meanwhile - care to contest any of the above facts?

Or are we just going to be treated to another "lol"?

I don't care about brexit, Steve. Labour have offered something genuinely radical, and they may well end up being the largest party capable of commanding a commons majority.

From my point of view, Brexit has driven you completely mad. If Labour were to actually get a majority, this country would be transformed. F--k brexit.

The tories refused to send anyone to Newsnight tonight. Middle of an election campaign, opposition has just released a spectacular manifesto, and the tories choose not to send anyone to give their response to it on the BBC's premier political show? They're scared. They don't know how to counter this.

[Little John]

Yada yadda yadda... Yeah right. You bullshitter.

Labour's determination to keep this country in the EU means damned near every single "radical" promise they have made in their manifesto is a lie. They know it and so do you. Which is why you have not contested a single one of the facts I have outlined with regards to EU legislation and the (lack of) capacity of national governments to nationalize and control their own industries.

[fuzzy]

Yep. Just wait until Hilllary, Dianne, Wes Streeting or any of the other rsoles runs the show AC

Labour is the reason the the Tories are vile - because they can.

[Lord Beria3]

Well said LJ.

A fantasy manifesto.

The civil service can't even cope with Brexit let along a fraction of labour's socialist transformation agenda!

[Potemkin Villager]

Just skimmed through the Labour manifesto, whatever else it has very successfully taken the wind out of the Tory's sails. Ok so it's a manifesto and nobody really expects it all to be delivered but it has extended the range of debate considerably. Johnson gobbing on about having to get brexit done as a response is wearing more than a bit thin and making him look more and more like a right tit.

Interestingly there is continuing support for nuclear power, the nuclear deterrent and air travel........

[Potemkin Villager]

This says it all!

https://www.thetorymanifesto.com/

[clv101]

Incredible interview on LBC just now about adult social care. It seems that the Tory manifesto, after May's dementia tax debacle in 2017, simply isn't going to make any policy proposals this time.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence take...

November 22, 2019

Some thoughts about Labour’s manifesto

There is only one scenario that would get Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street: as leader of a minority government, supported by the LibDems and the SNP. The sole purpose of such an administration would be to organise a second Brexit referendum. Corbyn, like Harold Wilson in 1975, will not take sides. 

The whole process would take a year from start to finish, especially since Corbyn first wants to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. During that year, he will not be able to implement much, if anything, of Labour’s new election manifesto. For that, there will have to be another election after the referendum. In that sense, the manifesto is irrelevant.

But it is not irrelevant for the campaign. Labour plans to raise £83bn in taxes to raise spending by the same amount. It would constitute the biggest shift in fiscal policy in the UK since the second world war. We don’t think it is helpful to make comparisons with Michael Foot’s 1983 manifesto, then described as the longest suicide note in history. The times are different. Grassroot labour supporters demand radicalism.

The purpose of this manifesto is to fire up the Labour grassroots. We think it might succeed on that score. It is smart politics for Labour to vacate the centre ground and focus on turnout. This is why polling organisations are struggling, because they cannot rely on tried-and-tested historical turnout patterns. They have to make big judgements. 

Corbyn believes he has more to gain from strong grassroots support that from tactical LibDem voters. This is his big gamble. It was correct in 2017. Given the poor starting point of the Labour campaign, this gamble is his only option. 

But, even if the gamble pays off, it is far from clear that Labour will get enough seats even to form a minority government. There is still a five-point gap between Labour’s best poll rating and the Tories’ worst. This is a gap consistent with 2017-style turnout levels. Something will need to shift in addition to a high turnout. 

[Lord Beria3]

Focus groups suggesting that labours 4 day week proposal is seen as lacking credibility.

[UndercoverElephant]

Focus groups suggesting that labours 4 day week proposal is seen as lacking credibility.

I think it needs to be explained better. There need to be checks and balances, and it couldn't apply to everybody. Won't make the slightest difference to a self-employed person like myself, for example.

[Lord Beria3]

Not happening UE. It's going down badly on the street.

Btw are you placing a bet on a labour majority or lab government.

Talk is cheap time to put real money on your convictions.