UK Election June 08

[Jericho]

OOps! So many layers to the Freudian slip I don't know where to begin...or end. And that's before we get to Labour and the EU...!

Or, we could talk about the conservatives, and what they have to offer for the common people of this country. #justsayin

[Jericho]

However, his party was willing to promise unequivocally. I understand his apprehension about saying you will leave EU regardless of negotiations but if his party's position is that you're leaving the EU, he should concede it. Does he want to be misunderstood? You can't be a martyr and a leader at the same time.

He did unequivocally answer that question today.
"Yes, we accept the results of the referendum, Britain is leaving the UK".

[Jericho]

He did unequivocally answer that question today.
"Yes, we accept the results of the referendum, Britain is leaving the UK".

Bit of a Diane Abbot moment there, i *meant* EU

[broncofan]

Bit of a Diane Abbot moment there, i *meant* EU

That's okay it's easy enough to do. I think he just didn't like the way the question was worded to be honest. She wanted him to accept the premise that he doesn't get anything he wants and he didn't find a nimble way to say you will leave no matter what but that he has no intention of failing in the negotiations.

[Stavros]

Or, we could talk about the conservatives, and what they have to offer for the common people of this country. #justsayin

We will have to wait for the manifesto, or just accept that 'more of the same' is on the agenda which means Theresa May's poor record of achievements at the Home Office will continue -she presents a calm and solid profile and is a 'One Nation Tory' compared to the Hard Brexiteers in her party, but she failed to reduce immigration to the levels David Cameron said they would, she promoted the 'Snooper's Charter' to monitor our emails and web browsing activities, has presided over a serious decline of the prison system struggling to recruit and retain staff, and as Prime Minister has done nothing to prevent the sale of arms to unelected dictatorships like Saudi Arabia currently being used to destroy the Yemen.
Government pledges to reduce government borrowing have been undermined by their own forecasts for growth even without the potential for Brexit to make all government spending figures meaningless, while she now may pledge to increase defence spending. As for Brexit, the approach that Juncker and others has said is 'rigid' is rigid because the room for manoeuvre is actually limited. The Tories and their supporters bang on about the trade deficit -the Germans need us more than we need them, is the mantra- making it appear that the UK is so precious a partner the EU will do everything it can to give us freebies denied to others. But clarity is not possible on the terms of Brexit because the negotiations haven't started yet.

The Tory party is split, as it has been since we entered the EU in 1973. The Hard Brexiteers want the UK to go it alone in the world, and want to see the EU dissolved. They share this mission to swap globalization as an integrated network of trade deals and regulations, for a pseudo-Darwinian 'life or death struggle' with the Russians and the Americans, all based on the assumption that if there were free markets, British and American firms would flourish. The fact that most of the world's capital resources and also its raw materials are owned by states not companies and that markets are rigged and manipulated makes the free market fantasy dangerous, but it does mean in the longer term the UK as it declines economically after leaving the EU will not be able to afford the range of public services we currently have, with in-work benefits the first to go, followed in the course of time with publicy funded health and education services.
Theresa May represents that part of the Tory party which understands it must appeal to voters who want some if not all public services protected, she thus represents the last gasp of One Nation Tories, because if she fails, the consequences could be dire for all of us, including the EU which itself will struggle for a time without the political and financial input of the UK.

So it is ironic that the leader who generates the most confidence, Mrs May is running on a portfolio of policies dating from 2010 that have failed, while the leader who generates no confidence at all, Jeremy Corbyn, is running on a portfolio of failed policies from the 1970s even as both of them claim to be protecting what the British people value the most. In sum, it may come down to a judgement of who is going to be the least damaging for Britain, rather than who is offering a positive message for the future.
But that is because I don't see the UK outside the EU as the positive development that others do.

[Jericho]

But that is because I don't see the UK outside the EU as the positive development that others do.

Voting ourselves out of Europe's probably the stupidest thing we've done in a while.
(I don't know why, but it irritates me when i agree with you)!

Thankfully, the lower orders can make up for it by voting for a Labour government with Jeremy Corbin as its leader.
(I'm officially a believer. It might only last until the 1st week of June, but for the first time in a long time, I've got some hope for this country).

(Well done J, so much for talking about the conservatives...Tho Fair play, you covered that pretty well)!

[Stavros]

Voting ourselves out of Europe's probably the stupidest thing we've done in a while.
(I don't know why, but it irritates me when i agree with you)!
Thankfully, the lower orders can make up for it by voting for a Labour government with Jeremy Corbin as its leader.
(I'm officially a believer. It might only last until the 1st week of June, but for the first time in a long time, I've got some hope for this country).
(Well done J, so much for talking about the conservatives...Tho Fair play, you covered that pretty well)!

We can agree and disagree on a range of things, it is nothing to worry about. As for this manifesto, it promises everything to everyone and they claim it has all been costed and the figures will be provided. It sounds to me like the kind of programme Hugo Chavez introduced in Venezuela, no prizes for guessing Jeremy Corbyn was a fan. The difference is that, allowing for the money syphoned off in bribes and everyday corruption, what was left of Venezuela's petroleum riches was, in a word, spent rather than invested, with the consequence that one of the richest oil states in the world is now an economic basket case, falling to pieces and becoming ungovernable, not exactly the model one wants imported into the UK. You have to wonder if the costs of Labour's programme has factored in the costs of leaving the EU. I doubt it. In any case, manifesto pledges are not worth the paper they are written on, and the outstanding fact we have learned since Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party is that he is a useless manager, that he is inflexible on policy issues, and for all his sincerely held beliefs he is offering policies from the past that failed.

But bear in mind that I am biased because of my past membership of the party and the disagreements I had with them around the time McDonnell was in a mini-war with Livingstone over the rates issue on the Greater London Council. I did re-join the party briefly a few years later, and was an admirer of the late and much lamented John Smith, but once Blair arrived and in spite of the Good Friday Agreement I lost confidence in them, with Iraq the nail in the coffin. They can promise me the earth and jam tomorrow, I will never vote Labour again.

[holzz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2...source=twitter

[Stavros]

The Labour Party has issued its election manifesto containing a fabulous array of promises with an equally fabulous amount of money to pay for it. The costing has been based on a 're-balancing' of the economy which will see higher rates of income tax imposed on people earning more than £80,000 a year, an increase in Corporation Tax to 26% with an unspecified set of measures designed to collect taxes from businesses and corporations currently lost through evasion or fraud. The cardinal point is whether or not these increases in taxation and receipts from a static VAT will be enough to pay for an ambitious spending programme which includes: (apologies if specific proposals are costed but not noted below, as I am working from Telegraph and Guardian reports not the manifesto itself)

-Creation of a Migrant Impact Fund, money coming from 'visa levies and a contributory element from residence visas for high net worth individuals' (see Telegraph link)
-The completion of the HS2 rail link between London and Birmingham with an extension called the 'Crossrail of the North' -and this following the full re-nationalization of the railways as the state takes over rail operating companies when their franchises expire.
-Abolition of university tuition fees and the restoration of maintenance grants for students (not sure if this has been costed).
-Creation of a National Care Service -not sure if this is costed, with a Carer's Allowance to be increased along with Jobseekers Allowance.
-an £8 billion investment in services over the life of the next Parliament (ie, five years).
-Creation of a Ministry of Labour (not sure if this is costed).
-'triple lock' on pensions guaranteed.
-Borrowing £250 billion over a ten year period for investment on energy, transport and digital infrastructure (Telegraph link).
-Maintain the renewal of the (nuclear) Trident missile programme (estimated cost phased through to the 2060s, £250 million).
-Maintain defence spending @ 2% of GDP.
-Increase police force by 10,000 -costed as a transitional programme at £800 million over the life of the next Parliament.
-Increase spending on the NHS by £6 billion a year, with £1.6 billion on social care.
-Building 100,000 new council homes.

In addition to these spending plans, Labour's aim is to maintain the UK's links to the single market and customs union of the EU but to end the free movement of people/workers in and out of the EU/UK. It has said it will oppose a 'no deal' outcome if negotiations with the EU end without an agreement, though what this means in practice is as mysterious as the policy to retain 'tariff free access' to the single market.

Labour also proposes to re-introduce rent controls, provide unspecified 'homes' for people sleeping rough, estimated at 4,000; and lower the voting age to 16. On communications the aim is to Improve 4G mobile coverage and invest to bring uninterrupted 5G to all urban areas, major roads and railways (see Telegraph link).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/at...our-manifesto/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ax-above-80000

For years the left used to tell us that the reason they lost election after election was due to the Party not offering the public a radical manifesto, as radical as the policy programme implemented by Clement Attlee's government in 1945. Tony Benn used this argument repeatedly in the 1980s, but it doesn't stack up because Labour lost four elections in a row and there comes a point when you have to ask -where did we go wrong? And even if you don't like winning three elections in a row under Tony Blair you might ask, what did he get right?

In 1945 the UK was bankrupt, but it paid for its ambitious programme of national renewal and extensive public ownership of transport, health, education and parts of industry through loans it received from the USA and Canada -to be precise, £4.3 billion from the USA (roughly £27 billion in today's money) and in 1946 £1.2 billion from Canada. The loans were offered at an interest rate of 2% payable when the UK could make it, the last payment of £42.4 million was paid to the USA, and £9.9 million paid to Canada by Gordon Brown as Chancellor in 2006.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2006/...-off-wwii-debt

Labour seems to me have failed to factor in the potential costs of Brexit -it is beyond doubt that, even if only in the short term, ie ten years, the UK will be worse off by leaving the EU, this means our national income will also decline taking tax revenues with it. In addition, even were corporation tax to be reduced, as a tax it will decline if major firms either downsize because of Brexit, or leave altogether, for example JP Morgan is likely to move at least 1,000 staff out of the UK to Ireland -which has a much lower rate of corporation tax- with 4,000 jobs in their Bournemouth offices at risk. If the costs of Brexit are not factored in, energy costs must be a factor as North Sea oil and gas declines as imports rise; the cost of compensating the rail operating companies will fall if they just let the franchises expire, but the cost of re-nationalizing the water industry will surely be burdened by compensations costs which a Labour spokesperson on the radio said would be decided on by Parliament.

Finally, Labour is committed to renewing the Trident nuclear programme, in spite of Corbyn's personal antipathy to nuclear weapons, but the more astonishing fact that it is also opposed by some in the Royal Navy who think it is an expensive, useless and outmoded piece of kit which we can't afford and don't even need.

Here ends the fairy tale, my apologies if it went on far too long.

[peejaye]

It all sounds very possible to me, still don't see any concrete evidence why we're going to be worse off out of the EU? What about the £350m per week we won't be sending there anymore?
Privatisation and rich Tories have been plundering the public purse for years, I would pay a fortune to see all these policies brought in on June 9th