General election

Looks like we are heading towards an early general election in June and seeing as the political debates on here are always very well discussed I thought I would raise the issue.

Will it be an easy win for Theresa and the conservatives as many are already predicting?

Think it will be an easy win, more's the pity. They wouldn't have risked it otherwise and they clearly want to increase their majority, so they can shaft us even more once we are out of Europe. Goodbye work time directive and human rights.

She gets my vote👍, it's just a shame this means the end of commie Corbyrn who's comedy act with Abbott  has put the fun back into politics.

Jeez....i fking hope not.
Can we go back to a monarchy as i have just about had enough of politicians who just repeatedly blame each other, spin facts and figures and lie to the general public just to get into "power".
Mind you with Trump & Co rattling sabres over in Korea and Syria allsorts might happen before June.

Bye corbyn, bye sturgeon.

She'll knock Corbyn out of the park and maybe even nick a seat or two in Scotland , it'll also give her a better negotiating stance with Europe and won't have a hand tied behind her back by the Phonies in the commons pretending to agree with the referendum result.
If Labour fail to get rid of the loonies and offer up another divvy as leader then it'll be curtains for them once and for all

Bye Sturgeon? Are you nuts? The SNP will certainly hold pretty much all the Scottish seats following this election, even if one or two were to change hands.

Anyway, a brazenly political u-turn from May which is only to be expected as you really shouldn't trust anything a Tory Prime Minister says. Various reasons for this, I expect. Obviously, the good polling they are currently receiving is of importance but the fact that the latest tranche of benefit-cuts have only just kicked in could be something they are considering? It will be obvious within 6 months how disastrous these are going to be to millions of the 'JAMs' May/Hammond have already lied about wanting to help. They'll probably get away with it with an election as early as June but any time much later than that? The evictions will probably have begun by then...  

If the Tories had waited until 2020, they would have the potential to increase their share of seats due to the boundary changes being implemented (mostly to their own benefit, of course), which is why most commentators were expecting no election would be called. However, I reckon the NHS will almost certainly have collapsed by then seeing the difficulties they've had even in this mild winter, not to mention the ever-increasing numbers of GPs retiring/moving abroad, lack of nurses, social care catastrophe occurring etc etc. By calling an election now, I think May is thinking she can potentially guarantee herself 5 years in power whereas the problems piling up for 2020 will be too much to overcome. Brexit included, of course.

One final point is that it has been reported there are likely to be many prosecutions due to Tory overspending on the 2015 election which could lead to anything up to 20 by-elections being called. This could, of course, easily wipe out any Tory majority - just think of the scandal if by-elections were ordered due to illegal expenditure. The CPS is currently considering if there are cases to answer and I'd imagine they will now decide not to prosecute in many or all of them if there is a general election to be held as it wouldn't be considered to be in the public interest. Hmmm. Wonder if this has been one of the major reasons for this sudden announcement - have the Tories been tipped the wink that prosecutions were going to be made shortly?

For now, most of the Labour seats currently held are actually pretty safe so any increase in Tory majority probably won't be too large, even if the vote share tumbles as predicted by the polling data, inaccurate as that has proved of late. Given the extremely successful hatchet job done on Corbyn (whose moderate left-leaning policies remain very popular among voters) by the media and the right-wing of his own party, it seems likely that the Lib Dems will be the ones to benefit most from this election which is incredible considering they were deservedly just about wiped out back in 2015.

Farron is a pretty hopeless leader, Corbyn hasn't stepped up into the role (though I'd argue he had little chance in any case given the vitriol from the media and many in his own party) and May is thoroughly incompetent. We've got the spectacle of an election coming up where nobody is really worth voting for!

I fear the worst, so our only hope the young get off their arses to vote this year because they've been royally shafted by the Tories/LibDem governments since 2010 and it would be nice if they realised this and stuck it to them for a change. Too much to hope for, unfortunately.

Sad to say Labour are stuffed all ends up
Corbyn is a weak leader
The message from the left gets drowned out by rabid 'alt right' lies perpetuated by a right-wing press
Blairites will try and get control of party - David Milliband? - but that is where the mess began for Labour... in thrall to big business to get elected and forgetting about the millions who voted for them generation after generation

We are fast becoming a one-party state which is introducing privatisation, anti worker laws etc etc by stealth

All hell will be let loose when the vermin get a 130 seat+ majority

Quoted from Maringer

Anyway, a brazenly political u-turn from May which is only to be expected as you really shouldn't trust anything a Tory Prime Minister says. Various reasons for this, I expect. Obviously, the good polling they are currently receiving is of importance but the fact that the latest tranche of benefit-cuts have only just kicked in could be something they are considering? .

People that are on benefits tend not to vote Tory , thats even if they vote at all so I doubt that'll have an effect on the Tory vote.
The only thing that could knacker May up would be a Brexit Sabotaged by the rest of the disgruntled House of Commons.
May is popular , the amount of people Ive heard that are not Tory but seem to think she's the best of a bad bunch at the minute.
I trust her more than any of the other idiots that are on offer from all the parties

Quoted from Maringer

Bye Sturgeon? Are you nuts? The SNP will certainly hold pretty much all the Scottish seats following this election, even if one or two were to change hands.

Anyway, a brazenly political u-turn from May which is only to be expected as you really shouldn't trust anything a Tory Prime Minister says. Various reasons for this, I expect. Obviously, the good polling they are currently receiving is of importance but the fact that the latest tranche of benefit-cuts have only just kicked in could be something they are considering? It will be obvious within 6 months how disastrous these are going to be to millions of the 'JAMs' May/Hammond have already lied about wanting to help. They'll probably get away with it with an election as early as June but any time much later than that? The evictions will probably have begun by then...  

If the Tories had waited until 2020, they would have the potential to increase their share of seats due to the boundary changes being implemented (mostly to their own benefit, of course), which is why most commentators were expecting no election would be called. However, I reckon the NHS will almost certainly have collapsed by then seeing the difficulties they've had even in this mild winter, not to mention the ever-increasing numbers of GPs retiring/moving abroad, lack of nurses, social care catastrophe occurring etc etc. By calling an election now, I think May is thinking she can potentially guarantee herself 5 years in power whereas the problems piling up for 2020 will be too much to overcome. Brexit included, of course.

One final point is that it has been reported there are likely to be many prosecutions due to Tory overspending on the 2015 election which could lead to anything up to 20 by-elections being called. This could, of course, easily wipe out any Tory majority - just think of the scandal if by-elections were ordered due to illegal expenditure. The CPS is currently considering if there are cases to answer and I'd imagine they will now decide not to prosecute in many or all of them if there is a general election to be held as it wouldn't be considered to be in the public interest. Hmmm. Wonder if this has been one of the major reasons for this sudden announcement - have the Tories been tipped the wink that prosecutions were going to be made shortly?

For now, most of the Labour seats currently held are actually pretty safe so any increase in Tory majority probably won't be too large, even if the vote share tumbles as predicted by the polling data, inaccurate as that has proved of late. Given the extremely successful hatchet job done on Corbyn (whose moderate left-leaning policies remain very popular among voters) by the media and the right-wing of his own party, it seems likely that the Lib Dems will be the ones to benefit most from this election which is incredible considering they were deservedly just about wiped out back in 2015.

Farron is a pretty hopeless leader, Corbyn hasn't stepped up into the role (though I'd argue he had little chance in any case given the vitriol from the media and many in his own party) and May is thoroughly incompetent. We've got the spectacle of an election coming up where nobody is really worth voting for!

I fear the worst, so our only hope the young get off their arses to vote this year because they've been royally shafted by the Tories/LibDem governments since 2010 and it would be nice if they realised this and stuck it to them for a change. Too much to hope for, unfortunately.

I disagree, the Scots voted them into parliament but also voted to remain part of the UK, by her saying she wants another referendum on independence, this will have angered many Scots, she'll lose seats for definite, just another poor politician that can't accept a democratic vote.

Were the last two campaigns not boring enough?

Quoted from grimps

People that are on benefits tend not to vote Tory , thats even if they vote at all so I doubt that'll have an effect on the Tory vote.
The only thing that could knacker May up would be a Brexit Sabotaged by the rest of the disgruntled House of Commons.
May is popular , the amount of people Ive heard that are not Tory but seem to think she's the best of a bad bunch at the minute.
I trust her more than any of the other idiots that are on offer from all the parties

The point about the benefit system is that a lot of JAMS have their subsistence wages topped up by tax credits. They tend to vote.

Quoted from Maringer

I fear the worst, so our only hope the young get off their arses to vote this year because they've been royally shafted by the Tories/LibDem governments since 2010 and it would be nice if they realised this and stuck it to them for a change. Too much to hope for, unfortunately.

So you want them to vote for a man who's own party have even tried to get rid of?

Quoted from Grim74

So you want them to vote for a man who's own party have even tried to get rid of?

Exactly, a leader that can not control his own party and a Liberal who plans to grind Government process to a halt over Brexit and in Scotland we have a "Nationalist".
Not impressed with some recent Tory policy but absolutely no opposition that will get my vote and so an easy choice for me.

Quoted from Zmariner

Exactly, a leader that can not control his own party and a Liberal who plans to grind Government process to a halt over Brexit and in Scotland we have a "Nationalist".
Not impressed with some recent Tory policy but absolutely no opposition that will get my vote and so an easy choice for me.

Look Corbyrn isn't going to win as long as I've got an hole in my bottom, if that's how you feel then you may as well save your time and not vote all.

Agree with you that there isn't much choice and although I'm voting for May it's a reluctant vote in the hope she actually deliver the Brexit I voted for.

Quoted from Grim74

Look Corbyrn isn't going to win as long as I've got an hole in my bottom, if that's how you feel then you may as well save your time and not vote all.

Agree with you that there isn't much choice and although I'm voting for May it's a reluctant vote in the hope she actually deliver the Brexit I voted for.

Just read the bottom of your mail on labour and fish that made me smile about labour. I will vote Conservative for sure, essential to vote. In  truth, unlike you I will not be reluctant. I am for Brexit and years of working in London has hardened my views as the key English remain vote is so disconnected from the rest of England it is hard to believe that we are in the same country. In fact if Khan has his way they would disconnect from the rest of England in terms of taxes and spending

Quoted from Zmariner

Just read the bottom of your mail on labour and fish that made me smile about labour. I will vote Conservative for sure, essential to vote. In  truth, unlike you I will not be reluctant. I am for Brexit and years of working in London has hardened my views as the key English remain vote is so disconnected from the rest of England it is hard to believe that we are in the same country. In fact if Khan has his way they would disconnect from the rest of England in terms of taxes and spending

Know what you mean, i was in an office in London on the morning of the Brexit result and they were all going nuts..."its those northerners, they havnt got a clue about anything, the end of the world is now,"  only just stopped short of flinging themselves out of the windows.

May, let's not forget, installed Johnson as foreign secretary for no other reason than self-interest and the crooked and incompetent Liam Fox in a similarly important role as regards Brexit, also a show of naked self-interest.

If she's the best option, we really are screwed. Unimpressive as Corbyn and Farron are, their respective parties at least have more sensible policies instead of actively forcing millions into poverty, wilfully destroying the NHS and reducing school funding to name just a few.

I always think it's a bit of a tragedy that we've got such an antiquated and unfair electoral system. Policy-wise there isn't a huge distance between the major left-leaning parties - Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens - but the first past the post means the vote is fractured so too many votes just don't count for anything and this generally plays into the hands of the Tories.

Undoubtedly the Tories will win what could essentially turn into a second EU referendum in everything but name and balls to issues like education, NHS, policing, housing and all other on going, day to day concerns. But still, more grammar schools will save us all eh?

Quoted from Grim74

So you want them to vote for a man who's own party have even tried to get rid of?

The alternative is a vote for a party whose leader is only leader because there was really no-one else left to do the job (Farron) or a party whose leader didn't even have to face a final round in their election because her opponent was so incompetent she had to withdraw.

On the other hand, Corbyn leads the largest political party in Europe, albeit not very well at times.

Latest news from Channel 4 is the CPS claims that the new general election wouldn't stop them bringing charges following the investigations into electoral expenditure fraud, but I'm not so sure.

https://www.channel4.com/news/.....ry-mps-over-expenses

1. nearly 200 000 pensioners have lost access to vital services under this tory government .
2. around 10% in cuts in child protection spending under this tory government
3. 18 billion pounds cuts to local authority budgets under this tory government .
4. the tories have hit disabled people with 28.3 billion pounds in cuts and counting .
5. there is a humanitarian crisis within the NHS .Numbers released by ministers show NHS England will face a sharp reduction of 0.6 per cent in real terms of per head in the financial year 2018-19.
6. NHS cuts blamed for at least the death of around 30 000 people and that number was in 2015 .
7. There's Been a 60 Percent Rise in Child Homelessness Under this Tory government .
8. Ethnic minorities now account for up to 40 per cent of all homeless households in England, despite being just 15 per cent of the population
9. this list of horrors can go on and on and on .

literally people are dying and suffering everyday due to tory cuts . the tories literally hate the poor and it is time people woke up to the fact and also realised brexit is not going to deliver what people think it will. Even the Tory press were lobbying not to cut migration just two days ago - why - because big business need the migrants.
seriously people i beg you to wake up .

Personally I'll be voting to try and reduce Tory power. Some of the things being said by high profile Tories is scary. Reductions in corporation tax (already extremely low) while simultaneously trying to increase NI contributions for the self employed. Saying we need a fairer immigration system were we treat everybody the same basically translates to less Europeans (who have a very similar culture to us) more Africans and Asians who will integrate even less than European
Countries.

One thing that really gets to me is how the media and governments have perpetrated a lie that left wing politics is anti economic. I tell you what does ruin economies a poorly trained, poor health workforce. School spending is being cut, basic services are non existent especially in the north and the NHS is falling to pieces.

Corbyn is far from perfect but he won't win a majority anyway. Labour may be able to govern with lib dem help in which case it will either be on condition Corbyn resigns or they'll force him to retract on his more radical policies such as trident. The alternative is a Tory government cutting taxes for the super rich and giving us a free trade deal with the US by adopting their regulations.

As ever at these times, it's always frustrating to find that no one party fully represents my views.  My natural inclination is conservative as I want a relatively low tax, small state and opportunities for advancement but I also believe in a welfare state that supports the poorest and most at risk in society.  Some of the cuts to PIP in particular are misguided and counter productive and won't result in any meaningful savings.  However, I do agree that we need to cap total benefits and limit child benefit to two children.  

Although I benefited from a grammar school education (and arguably, I wouldn't have been as successful in a comprehensive environment), they haven't been proven to aid social mobility as most of the kids who get to go to them are from wealthier backgrounds.

I'm also a remainer, but have accepted that we're leaving so I think the best policy is to give May a strong negotiating hand.  She will then be less beholden to her more rabid back benchers and we might be able to get more of a constructive deal.  I certainly wouldn't trust Corbyn to deliver on any negotiation let alone one as big as this.  I heard Gisela Stuart on the Today programme this morning and it sounded like she'd already conceded defeat which is crazy at this stage in the campaign but symptomatic of the state Labour finds itself in.  

So overall, on balance I'll probably be voting Conservative but partly because there is no credible and meaningful alternative but I'll continue to engage with my local MP to try and press for the least damaging Brexit and a more moderate approach to health, social care and education.    

Genuine question - can anyone explain how leaving the single market is going to help the economy within the next 10 years given it seems to be accepted by all that a free trade agreement with anyone else will take a minimum 7 years and we can't start that for 2 years.

I  always voted labour until a few years ago,

I then voted UKIP for obvious reasons,

Labour have gone even further backward since then their only policy is to throw money at everything ( money we do not have )

There is no reason to vote for UKIP any longer for obvious reasons,

So I will vote for the Conservatives for the first time in my life,

Theresa May is and will become an even better Prime Minister than any of the other leaders.

So you don't give a fu(k about all the cuts then Pete?

You should also know that borrowing under the Torres has been higher than it was under labour.

Quoted from Roast Em Bobby

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/.....r-the-last-70-years/

Labour supporting blogger for the Guardian😩 Move on nothing to see here.

If labour had a. Credible leader and a united party they would pose a threat but it is sad that they are lead by someone who seems to care more for his own position than the good of the party. Whether he is good or not the perception of him is damaged and he should have stepped aside

Quoted from grimsby pete

I  always voted labour until a few years ago,

I then voted UKIP for obvious reasons,

Labour have gone even further backward since then their only policy is to throw money at everything ( money we do not have )

There is no reason to vote for UKIP any longer for obvious reasons,

So I will vote for the Conservatives for the first time in my life,

Theresa May is and will become an even better Prime Minister than any of the other leaders.

We are the 5th richest nation on earth Pete. There is plenty to go round but it won't go far under the Tories, as they like to keep the wealth to themselves. I just cannot fathom how any working man can vote Tory; It is something that has always baffled me. They will use Brexit and immigration as a smokescreen while they carry on raping and pillaging their way through the economy and social justice.

Keep reading the papers and trotting out the line that Corbyn is an idiot and all the while put your faith in people that don't give a sh1te about you. The Tories are and always will be a party of self interest.

Quoted from Grim74

Labour supporting blogger for the Guardian😩 Move on nothing to see here.

Can you provide an alternative source that proves this guy wrong?

Quoted from Grim74

Labour supporting blogger for the Guardian😩 Move on nothing to see here.

Struggling to find any article or website that says different, even the economist, which is staunchly Tory admits it https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

Prove me wrong with facts from a credible source and I'll happily back down

I think the Tories have piled up the debt in recent years and haven't cut the deficit by as much as they'd hoped (I haven't read the Richard Murphy piece, I am unable to click on the link for moral reasons but Maringer told me off a while ago for my ad hominem attack so I'll refrain from commenting further  ), so no argument from me.

What do you see as the alternative? I certainly don't see a credible plan from Labour to change this but I'd be interested to hear you thoughts on this.  

If Labour had piled up the debt like the Tories have over the last 7 years despite record low interest rates and swinging cuts to the disabled and poorest we would never hear the last of it.  
The Tory Party have never helped the working classes and the poor & needy . If you value the NHS and the future of state education Labour is the only choice.
Cameron promised everything to everyone to get elected May will promise nothing and claim a mandate for everything.
It will be shameful and cowardly if she does not agree to TV debates, Is she too important to stand before the people and be questioned?

  

Quoted from Roast Em Bobby

Struggling to find any article or website that says different, even the economist, which is staunchly Tory admits it https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

Prove me wrong with facts from a credible source and I'll happily back down

That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.

https://fullfact.org/economy/government-borrowing/

I might be wrong but Im sure your source conveniently left out the mass overborrowing during to the financial crisis, Also worth noting the massive costs involved for the Tory's of given the job of rebuilding the country after the war.

Quoted from Town Monkey

I think the Tories have piled up the debt in recent years and haven't cut the deficit by as much as they'd hoped (I haven't read the Richard Murphy piece, I am unable to click on the link for moral reasons but Maringer told me off a while ago for my ad hominem attack so I'll refrain from commenting further  ), so no argument from me.

What do you see as the alternative? I certainly don't see a credible plan from Labour to change this but I'd be interested to hear you thoughts on this.  

I don't know to be perfectly honest. Higher tax and anti-globalisation policies seem the only logical solution to reducing debt in the long term without devastating public services. But I do struggle to understand whether the debt really matters anyway given the Bank of England has used quantative easing twice in recent times to release trillions of pounds to banks - an amount which is way in excess of what is saved by all the cut backs.

When I looked at my last financial year tax statement there was a chart showing where my money went - approximately 60% goes to Welfare and Pensions and a further 20% to the NHS, yet somehow the right wing press have got everybody up in arms about the cost of being in the EU and Overseas Aid, which make up about 3% of where my tax goes.

I don't have any answers but my instinct tells me to never trust the right wing, I'd rather have an incompetent left wing government in place who I trust to spend money where it's actually needed.

A tiny bit off topic, but who on the fishy thinks that this board holds a far better political debate than anywhere else? Not that it's a bad thing mind.

Quoted from Roast Em Bobby

I don't have any answers but my instinct tells me to never trust the right wing, I'd rather have an incompetent left wing government in place who I trust to spend money where it's actually needed.

That's all well and good but the last Labour government nearly bankrupt the country, and the one before that brought the country to a standstill, every time Labour have power it always ends badly for the country simply because they are driven by socialism.

Quoted from Grim74

That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.

https://fullfact.org/economy/government-borrowing/

I might be wrong but Im sure your source conveniently left out the mass overborrowing during to the financial crisis, Also worth noting the massive costs involved for the Tory's of given the job of rebuilding the country after the war.

Your sentence about mass overborrowing doesn't make sense. That's not a grammar police issue but I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. If it is that too much money was borrowed during the crisis then as most of the borrowing went on bailing out banks who were playing Monopoly with their (our) money what would your alternative have been?
I don't really want to use historical fact but by any measure Attlee's 45-51 Government must have borne much of the cost of "rebuilding Britain".

Quoted from codcheeky

If Labour had piled up the debt like the Tories have over the last 7 years despite record low interest rates and swinging cuts to the disabled and poorest we would never hear the last of it.  
The Tory Party have never helped the working classes and the poor & needy . If you value the NHS and the future of state education Labour is the only choice.
Cameron promised everything to everyone to get elected May will promise nothing and claim a mandate for everything.
It will be shameful and cowardly if she does not agree to TV debates, Is she too important to stand before the people and be questioned?

  

Reality check Labour haven't been the party of the working class for a very long time, they relinquished that title the day Blair and Mandelson opened the floodgates to every Tom male private and Muhammad ensuring the suppression of wages.

As for schools ( not counting Islamic) and the NHS Labour have failed miserably just look at the Welsh Labour run NHS.

I'd have to agree I think she should be taking part in a to debate, she's not the best speaker but always kicks Corbyrn scrawny are at question time so shouldn't be a problem.

Paul Nuttal would win the debate anyway it's just a shame his part are in turmoil, he should lead with the true party of the working class.

Interesting to see that 1 of the 13 mp's to reject the election was a Dennis skinner, he must know his seat is under threat.

Quoted from barralad

Your sentence about mass overborrowing doesn't make sense. That's not a grammar police issue but I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. If it is that too much money was borrowed during the crisis then as most of the borrowing went on bailing out banks who were playing Monopoly with their (our) money what would your alternative have been?
I don't really want to use historical fact but by any measure Attlee's 45-51 Government must have borne much of the cost of "rebuilding Britain".

Bailing the banks or not my point was that this borrowing doesn't look like it was included.

Quoted from Grim74

That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.

https://fullfact.org/economy/government-borrowing/

I might be wrong but Im sure your source conveniently left out the mass overborrowing during to the financial crisis, Also worth noting the massive costs involved for the Tory's of given the job of rebuilding the country after the war.

The figures for Murphy's run down of statistics are those published by the OBR. Yes, official government statistics so I'm not quite so sure why you doubt them. I think he even provides a link where you can download them yourself to check if you're in doubt.

The Tories have traditionally borrowed more and repaid less, it's as simple as that. The fact that they've somehow gained a reputation for fiscal rectitude is baffling until you consider how much of the media they've had lying for them over the years. The Tories have borrowed more in more years (though they've been in power longer as well) and repaid much, much less during these additional years in power.

And that paints a better picture than the actual reality. Let's not forget that the bulk of the North Sea Oil receipts came in the Thatcher/Major years when they repaid almost nothing and borrowed much more:

http://www.newstatesman.com/po.....ain%E2%80%99s-future

All the while privatising various national assets, of course. Just what happened to all that money, I wonder? Did it end up in the pockets of the wealthy from ongoing tax cuts? Yep.

In comparison, the Norwegians invested their oil receipts in a sovereign wealth fund the value of which is forecast to reach $1 trillion by 2020 and the profits of which are invested back into their country. I don't think most people realise to this day just how badly the Tories shafted the country in the eighties.

Anyway, Murphy's figures are calculated in 2014 prices so all borrowing by the Labour government during the financial crisis and its immediate aftermath is included in the figures. Don't forget that the Coalition/Tories have continued to borrow hugely since then as well. Murphy gives a clear rundown of amount borrowed in original and 2014 prices so I'm not quite sure how you can argue against this.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you mention the post-war years. Clement Atlee was Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951 and this is why the Welfare state and NHS came into existence, not to mention the benefits which came from nationalising of various major industries (since dismantled and sold off on the cheap, mostly during the 1980s).

However, I'm actually pleased you mentioned the post-war years. At the end of the war, the UK's debt/GDP ratio was almost 250% (as opposed to the current 90 percent or so), so can you imagine what the intellectual pygmies of the current Conservative Party would have done faced with this figure? Thankfully, back then there was an awareness that you can't cut your way out of a difficult situation such as this and despite all the wonderful policies enacted by the post-war Labour government (creation of the NHS, Welfare state etc etc) the debt was still reduced to 150% of GDP and falling by the early 1950s due to growth. And the subsequent Conservative and Labour governments continued with this post-war consensus which saw things improve further with debt falling below 50% in the 1970s. It was only with Thatcher that the Tories really lost their marbles and really started to screw the country over.

In comparison to the post-war years, in 2010 the Tories inherited a large deficit following the financial crisis buy growth was over 2% until they immediately began swingeing cuts which would have sent us back into recession if they hadn't quietly eased off whilst still blaming Labour largesse for their own problems. No wonder at all that they still won't be clearing the deficit until after 2020 (if then, given the likely impact of Brexit on our economy) when they originally promised to do so by 2015. A pity there is no real way to calculate how much lower the deficit would have been had we seen 2+% growth continue from 2010 until the present.

As for Labour plans to invest, at present there is such demand from investors to safely stow their money for minimal returns that long-term gilts (30 years or more) are effectively returning negative interest rates - the government could borrow billions to invest in the economy at no effective cost whatsoever and there is little doubt that such investment would more than pay for itself in the longer term. Just think what a couple of hundred billion invested in house building could do to resolve much of the housing crisis we're currently experiencing? Not that we've got enough skilled builders to do the work if such an investment was to be made - we'd have to get skilled immigrants to come and build our houses! We've long under-invested in infrastructure, education and training in comparison to our European and World neighbours/competitors as well as exporting all our manufacturing and heavy industry so it's no surprise that we're now ending up with a low-wage basketcase of an economy.

Quoted from Grim74

Bailing the banks or not my point was that this borrowing doesn't look like it was included.

Spent a long time with my previous post dipping in and out of it as I'm also working so missed quite a few messages. As noted, the figures include government borrowing so are exactly correct.

Perhaps you're confusing it with Quantitative Easing which was not borrowing at all, but a type of money creation enacted by the (theoretically independent) Bank of England? This is not borrowing and not carried out by the government in any case so would clearly not appear in government figures.

Quoted from Grim74

That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.

https://fullfact.org/economy/government-borrowing/

I might be wrong but Im sure your source conveniently left out the mass overborrowing during to the financial crisis, Also worth noting the massive costs involved for the Tory's of given the job of rebuilding the country after the war.

Thanks for coming back with an answer more credible than your last one. So it does indeed appear to be false that labour borrow more than the torys (Grimsby Pete please take note of this, given it was your throw away comment that started this line of investigation).

Can we now debunk the myth that it was labours fault that there was a global financial crisis. I'm pretty sure there were both left and right wing governments in power throughout the world when this happened and that all these countries ended up with a pile of debt as a result of it. Which suggests to me that it would have happened in the U.K. Regardless of who was in power.

Quoted from Grim74

That's all well and good but the last Labour government nearly bankrupt the country, and the one before that brought the country to a standstill, every time Labour have power it always ends badly for the country simply because they are driven by socialism.

No it didn't. The banking crisis nearly bankrupted the country. The exact same thing would have happened if the Torres happened to be in power at the time. The republicans were in power in the states at the same time and it fu(Ked them as much as us. It's actually out of control capitalism rather than socialism that caused it. Stop deluding yourself.

I would like to add or reply to some fellow fishy members who replied to my 1st post,

1,  I am more worried about world war 3 breaking out than the tory cuts, with that nutter in North Korea threating using nuclear weapons and the USA saying the same.
BUT
Roast em Bobby
Labour have said they will borrow another 500 billion pounds more than the present government so that concerns me more than what has gone on in the past.

2, Ginny said he can not understand a working man voting Tory, well I am not a working man I am happily retired,

3 I think if you look at all the leaders May is the best to get us a better deal with the European Union because the others will just say we don't really want to leave,
Well we voted to leave so we need the best team negotiating our exit and that's the Tories.


Finally I do think May is wrong in not agreeing to have a leaders debate it does not put her in a good light and that might go against her.

Don't worry about North Korea. Their nukes are only small devices and the only ones who need to fear them are South Korea and perhaps Japan if a NK missile could actually make it there without blowing up. Oh, and any US carrier fleets nearby. The North Koreans have enough artillery targetted at Seoul to obliterate the city in a heartbeat in any case so I think nukes are the least of the worries in that case.

In the event that the North Koreans were to attempt to use a nuke aggressively, they would be obliterated in short order by the Yanks so I'm guessing that even they aren't that stupid. Any sort of conflict in the area could still be disastrous to the region and world economy as a whole, of course.

As for the £500 billion of infrastructure spending mooted, here's a good run down from the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....ialist-a7337651.html

To put it into context, this would be £500 billion invested into the economy over the course of 10 years. In comparison, the last coalition government borrowed £430 billion between 2010-2013 just to pay the bills!

£500 billion sounds like (and is) a lot of money, but £50 billion per year isn't actually such a vast amount when you consider the country's GDP is over £2000 billion in size. Especially if you get something back from it.

For your final point, Pete, you do realise that Theresa May was in the 'Remain' camp? Just like pretty every other senior politician in the country.

Thanks Maringer that independent article has helped me understand that using QE to fund investment is indeed possible - albeit unlikely to happen.

Another thing. Theresa May is in the pocket of the Americans. She's that worried about a possible trade deal she is supporting trumps actions against Korea. The North Koreans have no reason to bother with us unless we were to back the Americans in military action which you can bet most of the Looney side of the Tories would support.

Anyway to the economy. Cutting spending is not the way forward anymore. Most economists are pro government intervention and spending because it leads to better outcomes. Investment in infrastructure  boosts productivity and returns usually around 3 times the cost. Investing in sport, mental health services, green technology all reduces illness and therefore reduces demand for the NHS. Even benefits do. If you cut benefits people are less likely to be able to look after themselves therefore develop health issues. It's no coincidence that the NHS is in such a mess under the conservatives.

May has already admitted that we will leave the single market despite economists saying not to. How can that be called economically savy? The Tories are also admitting that there form of brexit won't reduce immigration and at the same time people like Rees-Mog are trying to get us closer ties with the commonwealth who's demand for a free trade deal is likely to include allowing more migration (see India)

Yes Maringer I did realise May was in the remain camp the same as that idiot Cameron,

He was that certain we would vote remain he gave us a referendum thinking it would be a vote winner for him.

I can not see Corbyn ever becoming Prime minister Labour have lost most of its core support,

May will do her best to get the right sort of deal for us whatever her views before the referendum.

About the 500 billion it sounds good if invested in the right way but I doubt it would be with Corbyn in charge.

Picking up on Maringers point about post-War growth, the governments in power after the War, right u to the 1970s, were largely made up of people who'd lived through the Depression of the 30s. They'd seen what effect cuts had on economies at a time of recession. They helped turn a downturn, which normally last a year or two into a decade of austerity. Sound familiar?

Quoted from Maringer

The figures for Murphy's run down of statistics are those published by the OBR. Yes, official government statistics so I'm not quite so sure why you doubt them. I think he even provides a link where you can download them yourself to check if you're in doubt.

The Tories have traditionally borrowed more and repaid less, it's as simple as that. The fact that they've somehow gained a reputation for fiscal rectitude is baffling until you consider how much of the media they've had lying for them over the years. The Tories have borrowed more in more years (though they've been in power longer as well) and repaid much, much less during these additional years in power.

And that paints a better picture than the actual reality. Let's not forget that the bulk of the North Sea Oil receipts came in the Thatcher/Major years when they repaid almost nothing and borrowed much more:

http://www.newstatesman.com/po.....ain%E2%80%99s-future

All the while privatising various national assets, of course. Just what happened to all that money, I wonder? Did it end up in the pockets of the wealthy from ongoing tax cuts? Yep.

In comparison, the Norwegians invested their oil receipts in a sovereign wealth fund the value of which is forecast to reach $1 trillion by 2020 and the profits of which are invested back into their country. I don't think most people realise to this day just how badly the Tories shafted the country in the eighties.

Anyway, Murphy's figures are calculated in 2014 prices so all borrowing by the Labour government during the financial crisis and its immediate aftermath is included in the figures. Don't forget that the Coalition/Tories have continued to borrow hugely since then as well. Murphy gives a clear rundown of amount borrowed in original and 2014 prices so I'm not quite sure how you can argue against this.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you mention the post-war years. Clement Atlee was Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951 and this is why the Welfare state and NHS came into existence, not to mention the benefits which came from nationalising of various major industries (since dismantled and sold off on the cheap, mostly during the 1980s).

However, I'm actually pleased you mentioned the post-war years. At the end of the war, the UK's debt/GDP ratio was almost 250% (as opposed to the current 90 percent or so), so can you imagine what the intellectual pygmies of the current Conservative Party would have done faced with this figure? Thankfully, back then there was an awareness that you can't cut your way out of a difficult situation such as this and despite all the wonderful policies enacted by the post-war Labour government (creation of the NHS, Welfare state etc etc) the debt was still reduced to 150% of GDP and falling by the early 1950s due to growth. And the subsequent Conservative and Labour governments continued with this post-war consensus which saw things improve further with debt falling below 50% in the 1970s. It was only with Thatcher that the Tories really lost their marbles and really started to screw the country over.

In comparison to the post-war years, in 2010 the Tories inherited a large deficit following the financial crisis buy growth was over 2% until they immediately began swingeing cuts which would have sent us back into recession if they hadn't quietly eased off whilst still blaming Labour largesse for their own problems. No wonder at all that they still won't be clearing the deficit until after 2020 (if then, given the likely impact of Brexit on our economy) when they originally promised to do so by 2015. A pity there is no real way to calculate how much lower the deficit would have been had we seen 2+% growth continue from 2010 until the present.

As for Labour plans to invest, at present there is such demand from investors to safely stow their money for minimal returns that long-term gilts (30 years or more) are effectively returning negative interest rates - the government could borrow billions to invest in the economy at no effective cost whatsoever and there is little doubt that such investment would more than pay for itself in the longer term. Just think what a couple of hundred billion invested in house building could do to resolve much of the housing crisis we're currently experiencing? Not that we've got enough skilled builders to do the work if such an investment was to be made - we'd have to get skilled immigrants to come and build our houses! We've long under-invested in infrastructure, education and training in comparison to our European and World neighbours/competitors as well as exporting all our manufacturing and heavy industry so it's no surprise that we're now ending up with a low-wage basketcase of an economy.

I'm not denying the statistics but it is an unfair comparison as the full facts site concludes.

How you feel the need to criticise the Thatcher/Major years is beyond me, Thatcher restarted a U.K. That had stopped! Where body's were not even being buried, hospitals closed and rubbish piled up, socialism in full swing, as for Major he handed over the Country in such strong shape that it took three successive Labour administrations to wreck it.

Clement Attlee was only in power for 5/6 years and in that time he will be remembered mostly for starving his people after the war had finished with unnecessary rationing, but don't worry the elites didn't go short. The Conservatives were in power for most of the post war rebuilding period when things rapidly returned to normal as Capitalism took over.

As for Corbyrns master plan to spend 500 billion ( figure plucked from the sky) rebuilding program, the one flaw that sticks out like Dianne Abbotts fat bottom is the fact he wants to have unlimited open door immigration, not to mention the green light to the refugees/migrants we would be swamped in no time, but hey should be able to get a cheap plumber.

Quoted from Grim74

I'm not denying the statistics but it is an unfair comparison as the full facts site concludes.

How you feel the need to criticise the Thatcher/Major years is beyond me, Thatcher restarted a U.K. That had stopped! Were body's where not even being buried, hospitals closed and rubbish piled up, socialism in full swing, as for Major he handed over the Country in such strong shape that it took three successive Labour administrations to wreck it.

Clement Attlee was only in power for 5/6 years and in that time he will be remembered mostly for starving his people after the war had finished with unnecessary rationing, but don't worry the elites didn't go short. The Conservatives were in power for most of the post war rebuilding period when things rapidly returned to normal as Capitalism took over.

As for Corbyrns master plan to spend 500 billion ( figure plucked from the sky) rebuilding program, the one flaw that sticks out like Dianne Abbotts fat bottom is the fact he wants to have unlimited open door immigration, not to mention the green light to the refugees/migrants we would be swamped in no time, but hey should be able to get a cheap plumber.

Has Fenty got a new username?

Quoted from Grim74

I'm not denying the statistics but it is an unfair comparison as the full facts site concludes.

How you feel the need to criticise the Thatcher/Major years is beyond me, Thatcher restarted a U.K. That had stopped! Were body's where not even being buried, hospitals closed and rubbish piled up, socialism in full swing, as for Major he handed over the Country in such strong shape that it took three successive Labour administrations to wreck it.

Clement Attlee was only in power for 5/6 years and in that time he will be remembered mostly for starving his people after the war had finished with unnecessary rationing, but don't worry the elites didn't go short. The Conservatives were in power for most of the post war rebuilding period when things rapidly returned to normal as Capitalism took over.

As for Corbyrns master plan to spend 500 billion ( figure plucked from the sky) rebuilding program, the one flaw that sticks out like Dianne Abbotts fat bottom is the fact he wants to have unlimited open door immigration, not to mention the green light to the refugees/migrants we would be swamped in no time, but hey should be able to get a cheap plumber.

The alternative view on Attlee is of course that without his prudent handling of the economy in the immediate post war period the Tories wouldn't have been able to continue the recovery. It may have been "only six years" but it was the period where the priorities were finding homes for returning heroes as well as those who'd been rendered homeless by sustained bombing. The fact that he was still able to introduce the NHS with the set up costs associated is nothing short of amazing.

You've (Grim74) completely misunderstood the fullfacts page you're linking to.

This is saying that the claim that the current government (Coalition then Tory) since 2010 will have borrowed more than all previous Labour governments by 2020 is not accurate. However, this is just one government and a 10 year period as compared to the Labour party's 28 years in office (since 1946).

Murphy's figures (which come from the House of Commons Library, not the OBR - my error), show that the Tories have borrowed a lot more every year in office than Labour in current-day prices - around 25% more per year on average - and repaid a fraction of the debt than Labour have in current day prices - less than a fifth.

How does that square with your idea that Labour are profligate spenders and the Tories have fiscal rectitude? It doesn't - it entirely contradicts it, as I'll hope you can agree.

By pretty much every measure, the Thatcher years proved catastrophic for the UK. Despite the fact that Thatcher had a massive windfall from the oil, sold off much of the social housing built by earlier governments (kicking off the problems leading to the ridiculous housing market in the present day) and privatised anything which wasn't nailed down (undervaluing them in every single case, of course, as copied by Hameron & Co with the Royal Mail), poverty increased enormously, from 13.4% of the population in 1979 up to 22.2% in 1990:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

Economic inequality increased massively as well, something which was never reversed under the Labour-lite Blair governments. Let's not forget that unemployment peaked at almost 12% (higher in impoverished, mostly northern areas) and was over 2 million for every year but 1980 (and over 3 million for four years, 83 to 86) when she had just got started.

Quite interesting that Thatcher is so beloved by the right. She certainly broke the backs of the Unions (with illegal use of the police and army, of course) and they certainly had too much power, but if the Germans can benefit from strong unions, there shouldn't be any reason why

The unemployment came about due to a massive experiment with monetarism which ultimately managed to bring down inflation, but at what cost? Discussion of this here:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/on-economic-achievements-and-failures.html

Your view of Atlee is somewhat bizarre. Atlee's government implemented the recommendations of the Beveridge Report and reduced the debt to GDP ratio by almost 100% in just 6 years! As I have already noted, subsequent governments continued with similar policies so talk of a return to normal Capitalism is nonsense.

I've pointed out that we're desperately in need of investment in infrastructure, housing, education and so forth and explained why the £500 billion figure was mooted and how it could be worthwhile. You don't seem concerned about the lack of investment and our rubbish infrastructure because you are mostly concerned about immigration. To put it simply, we need immigration because we've got an aging population and need to pay for the triple-locked pensions of the retiring baby boomers who are now retiring in droves, their healthcare and so forth. We also need foreign doctors and nurses to migrate here to treat them because we're not training nearly enough medical staff and haven't for years. The stupid fornicators have even changed nurses bursaries to loans recently because one thing which is guaranteed to attract people to a difficult and poorly-paid job is obviously more debt! We also need lots of other immigrants with skills in many fields because we haven't trained/educated enough people to fulfil these roles due to underinvestment.

Very tough times ahead, regardless of what occurs in the election.

Quoted from Grim74

I'm not denying the statistics but it is an unfair comparison as the full facts site concludes.

How you feel the need to criticise the Thatcher/Major years is beyond me, Thatcher restarted a U.K. That had stopped! Were body's where not even being buried, hospitals closed and rubbish piled up, socialism in full swing, as for Major he handed over the Country in such strong shape that it took three successive Labour administrations to wreck it.

Clement Attlee was only in power for 5/6 years and in that time he will be remembered mostly for starving his people after the war had finished with unnecessary rationing, but don't worry the elites didn't go short. The Conservatives were in power for most of the post war rebuilding period when things rapidly returned to normal as Capitalism took over.

As for Corbyrns master plan to spend 500 billion ( figure plucked from the sky) rebuilding program, the one flaw that sticks out like Dianne Abbotts fat bottom is the fact he wants to have unlimited open door immigration, not to mention the green light to the refugees/migrants we would be swamped in no time, but hey should be able to get a cheap plumber.

What a bizarre assessment , the Labour Govt of 1945 founded modern Britain and is perhaps remembered as the greatest this country has known

I think the thing that many don't realise is that many of the policies of the 'far-left' Corbyn wouldn't have been too much out of place in a Conservative Party manifesto from the mid-1970s when keeping to the ideals of the post-war consensus was still perceived as the correct way to operate by all major parties

It was Thatcher who changed all this and was the catalyst which led to the most serious problems we face today with housing and severe inequality.. Corbyn is fundamentally a moderate social democrat so it is particularly comical when he's accused of being a communist by those on the right.

Quoted from Maringer

I think the thing that many don't realise is that many of the policies of the 'far-left' Corbyn wouldn't have been too much out of place in a Conservative Party manifesto from the mid-1970s when keeping to the ideals of the post-war consensus was still perceived as the correct way to operate by all major parties

It was Thatcher who changed all this and was the catalyst which led to the most serious problems we face today with housing and severe inequality.. Corbyn is fundamentally a moderate social democrat so it is particularly comical when he's accused of being a communist by those on the right.

This is a point that i was going to make.

Can anyone tell me why Corbyn is a clown and someone you wouldn't trust to run the country? Is it merely because the right wing press tell you this, or do you have any actual evidence? It should be about party politics and policies, not personalities.

Quoted from ginnywings

This is a point that i was going to make.

Can anyone tell me why Corbyn is a clown and someone you wouldn't trust to run the country? Is it merely because the right wing press tell you this, or do you have any actual evidence? It should be about party politics and policies, not personalities.

Not so much a clown but not living in the real world,

Even most Labour MPS would like him gone ,

He is their leader because the rank and file members want him there,

If he ever becomes Prime Minister I will run round ( well limp ) Blundell Park naked.

Not a clown at all and this debate has been interesting but the attempt to get rid of him by his own party is enough for me to not see labour as a cohesive unit that I can vote for. The conservatives have plenty of problems and as traditionally s conservative I hated thatcher. The problem is that me and I suspect a lot of others find the Labour Party chaotic, now with a leader that had the support of his MP's I would be more open to change but I will not vote for Corbyn and I do not like the Liberals at all

I don't think Corbyn will be Labour leader much longer anyway. This is the beginning of the end for him as i think the Tories will will the election comfortably and Corbyn will have no option but to stand down. I just really hate the personal attacks that have become the norm in election campaigns. If you don't agree with Labour policies or doctrine, then don't vote for them. I didn't much like Tony Blair but i voted for him because he represented the party that most aligns with my beliefs and values and that is how it should be. Sadly, it never is.

Quoted from Maringer

You've (Grim74) completely misunderstood the fullfacts page you're linking to.

This is saying that the claim that the current government (Coalition then Tory) since 2010 will have borrowed more than all previous Labour governments by 2020 is not accurate. However, this is just one government and a 10 year period as compared to the Labour party's 28 years in office (since 1946).

Murphy's figures (which come from the House of Commons Library, not the OBR - my error), show that the Tories have borrowed a lot more every year in office than Labour in current-day prices - around 25% more per year on average - and repaid a fraction of the debt than Labour have in current day prices - less than a fifth.

How does that square with your idea that Labour are profligate spenders and the Tories have fiscal rectitude? It doesn't - it entirely contradicts it, as I'll hope you can agree.

By pretty much every measure, the Thatcher years proved catastrophic for the UK. Despite the fact that Thatcher had a massive windfall from the oil, sold off much of the social housing built by earlier governments (kicking off the problems leading to the ridiculous housing market in the present day) and privatised anything which wasn't nailed down (undervaluing them in every single case, of course, as copied by Hameron & Co with the Royal Mail), poverty increased enormously, from 13.4% of the population in 1979 up to 22.2% in 1990:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

Economic inequality increased massively as well, something which was never reversed under the Labour-lite Blair governments. Let's not forget that unemployment peaked at almost 12% (higher in impoverished, mostly northern areas) and was over 2 million for every year but 1980 (and over 3 million for four years, 83 to 86) when she had just got started.

Quite interesting that Thatcher is so beloved by the right. She certainly broke the backs of the Unions (with illegal use of the police and army, of course) and they certainly had too much power, but if the Germans can benefit from strong unions, there shouldn't be any reason why

The unemployment came about due to a massive experiment with monetarism which ultimately managed to bring down inflation, but at what cost? Discussion of this here:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/on-economic-achievements-and-failures.html

Your view of Atlee is somewhat bizarre. Atlee's government implemented the recommendations of the Beveridge Report and reduced the debt to GDP ratio by almost 100% in just 6 years! As I have already noted, subsequent governments continued with similar policies so talk of a return to normal Capitalism is nonsense.

I've pointed out that we're desperately in need of investment in infrastructure, housing, education and so forth and explained why the £500 billion figure was mooted and how it could be worthwhile. You don't seem concerned about the lack of investment and our rubbish infrastructure because you are mostly concerned about immigration. To put it simply, we need immigration because we've got an aging population and need to pay for the triple-locked pensions of the retiring baby boomers who are now retiring in droves, their healthcare and so forth. We also need foreign doctors and nurses to migrate here to treat them because we're not training nearly enough medical staff and haven't for years. The stupid fornicators have even changed nurses bursaries to loans recently because one thing which is guaranteed to attract people to a difficult and poorly-paid job is obviously more debt! We also need lots of other immigrants with skills in many fields because we haven't trained/educated enough people to fulfil these roles due to underinvestment.

Very tough times ahead, regardless of what occurs in the election.

Just forgeting the Torys for the minute could you honestly keep a straight face and tell me that new Labour were not guilty of profligate spending??
The same New Labour that turned Majors legacy into a £100bn deficit!
Even Milliband was laughed out of the TV studio during the election debate and ridiculed by virtually every political analyst when he tried to tell the studio audience that he didn't think his party had overspent whilst in power.

The thing is Maringer, that if you were to tell me how bad the Torys or Thatcher had been at running the Country over the years then I could even stomach some of it, Even though Thatcher will be regarded by many as one of our greatest ever Prime Ministers I do take on board she made many many mistakes no doubt about it, my family despised her and I'm certainly  no Tory. But what I absolutely cannot stomach is you trying to tell me that Labour have been good for the Country in comparison.

The average man in the street is not interested in the governments treasury department (that's me and you out) he just wants our government to run the Country well in the interest of its OWN people, he wants a low taxed good standard of living for his family in a safe and prosperous country, what is wrong with that?

Now even the most political inept amongst us can now see that Labour are clearly not interested in what the average man thinks, even recent history shows us that when given office they intercourse things up big style, every Labour government has been a disaster resulting in a trashed economy, but let's not worry about that when you talk about thatchers failed economic inequality (a Labour favourite) that is until you read the IFS report that concludes income inequality just didn't reverse under New Labour but had actually risen .... so much for the progressive drum beaters of morality.

As for immigration I will partly agree with you but it's controlled immigration we need and not the gung-ho open door style that Corbyrn would give us, we have around 1.8m unemployed in this Country it's time we got the long term unemployed out of their pits and into low skilled work or even better retrained with no compliance meaning no dole simple.

Agree tough times will lie ahead regardless  
  
Do I trust May to fully deliver on her as yet seen manifesto .... no
Do I trust her on delivering the Brexit i and 17.5m voted for .....no
Is May and her party the right choice........ absolutely yes!  she is the best hope we have from a very bad bunch.

Quoted from ginnywings

This is a point that i was going to make.

Can anyone tell me why Corbyn is a clown and someone you wouldn't trust to run the country? Is it merely because the right wing press tell you this, or do you have any actual evidence? It should be about party politics and policies, not personalities.

When Corbyn speaks I will admit I sometimes find myself nodding my head in agreement with him and then just before you know it WHAM! A bit stinking turd comes out his mouth and reality hits home he wants to disband the U.K. Armed forces, have unlimited immigration, give up our nuclear deterrent, give the Falklands back to Argentina, Gibraltar back to Spain, allow a SNP referendum, no doubt a Brexit 2nd referendum, backs the IRA, plans to put every adult on benefits, actually believes socialism works, and worst of all he wants Abbot as his deputy PM!  Of course he's a flipping clown.

Quoted from Grim74

When Corbyn speaks I will admit I sometimes find myself nodding my head in agreement with him and then just before you know it WHAM! A bit stinking turd comes out his mouth and reality hits home he wants to disband the U.K. Armed forces, have unlimited immigration, give up our nuclear deterrent, give the Falklands back to Argentina, Gibraltar back to Spain, allow a SNP referendum, no doubt a Brexit 2nd referendum, backs the IRA, plans to put every adult on benefits, actually believes socialism works, and worst of all he wants Abbot as his deputy PM!  Of course he's a flipping clown.

Corbyn was completely right on Iraq as he is on Syria, May's lot will follow Trump into crazy wars like Blair.   A hardbrexit is much more likely to see an independent Scotland and a united Ireland as well severe problems for Gibraltar.  Like it or not when we did speak to the IRA we ended up with a peace deal and you are surely not saying this is bad thing?  

Since Blair central selection of candidates has destroyed local party democracy and candidates of most party's tend to be Oxbridge debaters (the establishment).  Even if Corbyn loses he will stay until this changes, he has the biggest mandate of any party leader from the largest democratic party in Western Europe, the disloyal Blairites have destroyed any chance they may had of winning by attacking Corbyn rather than the Tories

Firstly, as expected, you apparently haven't accepted the fact that the statistics presented show that historically, the Tories have borrowed more than the Labour governments (approximately 25% more per year on average) and have paid off less than a fifth of the amount that Labour governments have. In fact, you don't seem to have commented on this at all!

Secondly, the Global Financial crisis in 2008 (Global being the operative word) truly knackered the economy which is why the deficit of circa £10 billion in 2008 leapt to more than £50 billion the following year then over £100 billion the year after. As I'm sure you really know, this was nothing to do with Labour profligacy - it was a financial crisis caused by the collapse of the banking system. I'd recommend you watch the movie, "The Big Short". Very well made and entertaining way to describe how the bankers crashed the world economy. Not the Labour Party's fault, obviously.

The deficits run by Thatcher throughout most of 1980s were mostly due to the recession during the early 1980s which wasn't entirely her government's fault, though she takes a lot of the blame for letting unemployment rise to more than 3 million. All this while reaping the rewards of the North Sea oil as well, don't forget - they were still borrowing money, despite the fact that they had tens of billions coming in from oil revenue as well as cutting down the size of the state - how stupid is that, eh?

The deficits run by the Tories throught most of the 1990s were caused by the recession in the early 1990s which again mostly wasn't their fault thought the ERM debacle didn't help.

If you accept these facts about the Tory deficits (i.e. not all their fault), you'll simply have to agree how foolish it is to try and claim that the large deficit following the biggest recession in a century was the fault of the Labour government!

Look, I know you're not going to allow yourself to be convinced here but it's getting to the stage where you're effectively walking around with your fingers in your ears saying "La la la, Can't hear you". If you want to trust the Tories, then that's fair enough, but you need to accept that everything you've been told by the media about so-called Labour profligacy and Tory fiscal rectitude simply isn't true.

P.S. The Brexit you voted for exists only in the minds of those who expect a miracle before breakfast then a couple more after lunch as the ominous economic signs already show. All we can hope for is the least bad option at this stage and I'm not sure that anybody has an idea what this is, least of all May or her useful idiots such as Fox and Johnson.

Quoted from Grim74

When Corbyn speaks I will admit I sometimes find myself nodding my head in agreement with him and then just before you know it WHAM! A bit stinking turd comes out his mouth and reality hits home he wants to disband the U.K. Armed forces, have unlimited immigration, give up our nuclear deterrent, give the Falklands back to Argentina, Gibraltar back to Spain, allow a SNP referendum, no doubt a Brexit 2nd referendum, backs the IRA, plans to put every adult on benefits, actually believes socialism works, and worst of all he wants Abbot as his deputy PM!  Of course he's a flipping clown.

You have clearly been brainwashed by the daily mail  or the sun or Facebook pages such as 'Britain first'. He believes in negotiating to prevent death by war, to me and seen some of the people it has affected I don't think it's such a stupid idea. But I suppose you only care about the flag and not the people it affects. Give us evidence from the above that any of what you have said is true from a factual source. Murdoch and his pals must be licking their lips at the thought of lower taxes for them if May gets in whilst the elderly and disabled are hit hardest. Why is no one talking about the rise in national debt since the Torres have been back in power, or the rise in austerity and vital services being cut. The owners of  media company's  are totally against Corbyn because he will say and do what he feels (same as trump in someways) compared to previous labour leaders who were puppets on strings to big business.

Quoted from Maringer

Firstly, as expected, you apparently haven't accepted the fact that the statistics presented show that historically, the Tories have borrowed more than the Labour governments (approximately 25% more per year on average) and have paid off less than a fifth of the amount that Labour governments have. In fact, you don't seem to have commented on this at all!

Secondly, the Global Financial crisis in 2008 (Global being the operative word) truly knackered the economy which is why the deficit of circa £10 billion in 2008 leapt to more than £50 billion the following year then over £100 billion the year after. As I'm sure you really know, this was nothing to do with Labour profligacy - it was a financial crisis caused by the collapse of the banking system. I'd recommend you watch the movie, "The Big Short". Very well made and entertaining way to describe how the bankers crashed the world economy. Not the Labour Party's fault, obviously.

The deficits run by Thatcher throughout most of 1980s were mostly due to the recession during the early 1980s which wasn't entirely her government's fault, though she takes a lot of the blame for letting unemployment rise to more than 3 million. All this while reaping the rewards of the North Sea oil as well, don't forget - they were still borrowing money, despite the fact that they had tens of billions coming in from oil revenue as well as cutting down the size of the state - how stupid is that, eh?

The deficits run by the Tories throught most of the 1990s were caused by the recession in the early 1990s which again mostly wasn't their fault thought the ERM debacle didn't help.

If you accept these facts about the Tory deficits (i.e. not all their fault), you'll simply have to agree how foolish it is to try and claim that the large deficit following the biggest recession in a century was the fault of the Labour government!

Look, I know you're not going to allow yourself to be convinced here but it's getting to the stage where you're effectively walking around with your fingers in your ears saying "La la la, Can't hear you". If you want to trust the Tories, then that's fair enough, but you need to accept that everything you've been told by the media about so-called Labour profligacy and Tory fiscal rectitude simply isn't true.

P.S. The Brexit you voted for exists only in the minds of those who expect a miracle before breakfast then a couple more after lunch as the ominous economic signs already show. All we can hope for is the least bad option at this stage and I'm not sure that anybody has an idea what this is, least of all May or her useful idiots such as Fox and Johnson.

Read my posts again and you will realise I have commented.

Yes I have seen the big short thanks, but I already known  very well what happened, but despite warnings they carried on borrowing and spending money on an epic scale, in 2000/01 public spending was at 34.5% of GDP (the lowest for generations) by 2009/10 it was at 47.7% of GDP, thus leaving us well in the excrement when the global economic disaster finally arrived.

I have never blamed Labour for the global financial crisis but can you not even accept that they left us dangerously exposed considering all the warning signs, what was it Brown said again "no more boom and bust" 😩

As for Brexit we were told of financial Armageddon in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit vote! Well this was proved to be absolute bollox, even the Bank of England are now saying it was there Michael Fish moment! I salute the brave patriotic 17.5m of us.
Why can you not now just except the result pull together and get behind your soon to be proud sovereign country.

Quoted from 1739

You have clearly been brainwashed by the daily mail  or the sun or Facebook pages such as 'Britain first'. He believes in negotiating to prevent death by war, to me and seen some of the people it has affected I don't think it's such a stupid idea. But I suppose you only care about the flag and not the people it affects. Give us evidence from the above that any of what you have said is true from a factual source. Murdoch and his pals must be licking their lips at the thought of lower taxes for them if May gets in whilst the elderly and disabled are hit hardest. Why is no one talking about the rise in national debt since the Torres have been back in power, or the rise in austerity and vital services being cut. The owners of  media company's  are totally against Corbyn because he will say and do what he feels (same as trump in someways) compared to previous labour leaders who were puppets on strings to big business.

Why can you not understand Islamist terrorists are not up for negotiation, the have one end goal only and that doesn't include you or me.

As for Corbyrn I'm not going to Google search for you have a look, he's campaigned all his life against nuclear weapons FFS. he's even on record saying he would never push the button if he was in power, again get on Google it's all on record.

Do you honestly believe he has a chance of being PM? He's the champion of lost causes he's never won intercourse all except maybe an Albert Steptoe lookalike competition.

Well he must be bloody crazy, I mean, why wouldn't he want to kill millions with the flick of a switch. I really think it demonstrates how backwards, despite our arrogance to it, that western society can be when a guy can be criticised for not wanting to use a nuclear weapon.

Quoted from Grim74

Read my posts again and you will realise I have commented.

Yes I have seen the big short thanks, but I already knew very well what happened, but despite warnings they carried on borrowing and spending money on an epic scale, in 2000/01 public spending was at 34.5% of GDP (the lowest for generations) by 2009/10 it was at 47.7% of GDP, thus leaving us well in the excrement when the global economic disaster finally arrived.

I have never blamed Labour for the global financial crisis but can you not even accept that they left us dangerously exposed considering all the warning signs, what was it Brown said again "no more boom and bust" 😩

As for Brexit we were told of financial Armageddon in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit vote! Well this was proved to be absolute bollox, even the Bank of England are now saying it was there Michael Fish moment! I salute the brave patriotic 17.5m of us.
Why can you not now just except the result pull together and get behind your soon to be proud sovereign country.

I'm not sure there are many who haven't accepted the Referendum result but democracy isn't just about respecting the victor. If that was the case then the Tory party would've ceased to exist after the hammering they got in 97. All democratic systems require the voice of opposition to continue to be heard and let's face it 48% is a pretty significant level of opposition. Brexit does undoubtedly mean Brexit but opponents have a right to have someone to fight for them as to what the eventual deal looks like.

Quoted from Grim74

Read my posts again and you will realise I have commented.

Yes I have seen the big short thanks, but I already knew very well what happened, but despite warnings they carried on borrowing and spending money on an epic scale, in 2000/01 public spending was at 34.5% of GDP (the lowest for generations) by 2009/10 it was at 47.7% of GDP, thus leaving us well in the excrement when the global economic disaster finally arrived.

I have never blamed Labour for the global financial crisis but can you not even accept that they left us dangerously exposed considering all the warning signs, what was it Brown said again "no more boom and bust" 😩

As for Brexit we were told of financial Armageddon in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit vote! Well this was proved to be absolute bollox, even the Bank of England are now saying it was there Michael Fish moment! I salute the brave patriotic 17.5m of us.
Why can you not now just except the result pull together and get behind your soon to be proud sovereign country.

Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you just not understand what was written?

Yes, Thatcher hacked back public spending to levels not seen since before the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state. Somehow, you seem to think that this is a good thing! Spending on health, education, roads and other infrastructure is a bad thing, is it?

Anyway, it is well known that the public infrastructure was practically falling to pieces when the New Labour government got into power and much of their expenditure was to fix what Thatcher wilfully broke - no end of spending on schools and roads, for example, though much of this was foolishly done under costly PFI schemes (pioneered by the Tories), to 'keep it off the books'. Governments can borrow money at greatly lower rates than the cost of PFI so this was idiotic. Amusingly enough, this was one of the sticks used by the Tories to beat Brown - only for Osborne to double-down on PFI and expand it further once they got into power! Liars and crooks, as they say.

You seem to be getting rather confused about the government expenditure situation. The global financial crisis first began in late 2007 and the excrement really hit the fan in September 2008. The increased government expenditure which occurs after tax receipts drop off a cliff in a recession and expenses go up (unemployment and housing benefit and the like) is always delayed by a year or so. So yes, of course expenditure was enormously greater in 2009/2010 which was right in the aftermath of the initial crisis! In just the same way that it increased massively under the Tories following the recession in the early 1990s. Claiming that the huge deficit in 2008-2010 was the fault of Labour profligacy is just idiocy. You are contradicting yourself when you say that you aren't blaming Labour for the financial crisis but then attempt to do so!

Borrowing as a percentage of GDP ranged between 2.4% and 3.4% from 2002 to 2008 (some debt was repaid in three out of the four years prior to that). As inflation was bumbling around at just under 2%, this means the Labour government was effectively borrowing around 1% per year. Not ideal, but hardly a disaster and very low in comparison to Tory borrowing during much of the 1980s and 1990s.

Anyway, Brown's "end to boom and bust" comment was just foolish hubris as they really thought they had the tools to achieve this without paying enough attention to the credit boom which was only made possible by the nonsense explained in "The Great Short". Still unbelievable that nobody in power had the faintest idea what was occurring behind the scenes but then it was all so ridiculously stupid that you wouldn't believe the bankers could make such catastrophic errors.

Regarding the claims about the likelihood of immediate catastrophe following the Brexit vote, I defy you to name one respected economist who claimed this would actually occur. Obviously, your man Osborne (who I imagine you praised to high heaven before the last election?) doesn't count because he's not respected, he's full of shite and he's not an economist. As with the deficits following a recession, things only begin to get dodgy some time after an event.

Inflation just now kicking in following the expected devaluation of the pound so we're getting to stage where the 'fun' has started to begin, so to speak Last month, for example, inflation rose higher than average wages for the first time in a couple of years so we're getting poorer already (and after the weakest 'recovery' from a recession for a century). Next step will be business uncertainty due to the fact that we don't hold any cards at all in the bargaining process and we'll see lots of companies relocating overseas but the real crap will only really occur in 2 years when we leave. There is no way we can get a better deal from the EU than is on offer to their other members so, even with the best will in the world (which doesn't exist), we'll be worse off. May and co (who will most likely be in power) seem more clueless than most - see Fox's ignorance about trade deals, for example - so I reckon it will be the hardest of hardest Brexits.

Anecdotally, one of my mates has recently accepted redundancy. The business where he works was previously expanding but they've been screwed because everything in their industry is traded in dollars. The depreciation of the pound has bunked up prices in the region of 15% on average and it has made much of their business untenable.

Incidentally, your hyperbolic jingoism sounds a bit flipping ridiculous. Claiming you're more patriotic because you wanted to leave the EU when others wanted to stay is just nonsense. People voting to remain were just as patriotic as you, wanting the best for their country. When you start sounding like Nigel Farage, you're developing a problem.  

Similarly the 'proud sovereign country' nonsense. We were a sovereign country before the Brexit vote, just one which was part of the world's largest trading bloc. In a couple of years, we'll still be a sovereign country, though most likely a much poorer one.

Anyway, I'll be a bit busy over the next few weeks so won't be able to more than dip into this forum once in a while.

Edit: Just read back my post which I dipped into and out of over the afternoon and it's a bit more aggressive in tone than planned. Apologies for that - no time to edit now, but the main points still stand.

If a British PM ever needs to launch nuclear weapons then the world's copulated already because the mainland USA will be a smoking crater.

Quoted from LH

If a British PM ever needs to launch nuclear weapons then the world's copulated already because the mainland USA will be a smoking crater.

I do not doubt that all major powers have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as so called conventional weapons.  When does a weapon become big enough to be a deterrent?  Why are nuclear bombs good chemical weapons bad. Min 80 billion on new trident is madness.  These are weapons are could never use. If they are a deterrent should every country have them? Surely this will end wars?
How long before a country develops s virus, slips the vaccination in with the baby jabs for a few years and then releases it? Would you put it past Russia or China or Isis or even the US?
If we are going to spend 80 billion on new nuclear weapons let's at least make them here, the French manage it and I'm sure we could

I can pretty much confirm that the UK doesn't have chemical or biological weapons. Obviously though the expertise is in place to create such vile weapons should the need arise (which it wouldn't because us Brits like to fight like gents and only fight back should we get started on (UKSF excepted)).

Nuclear weapons are unfortunately a necessary evil. In an ideal world nobody would have them. As long as our adversaries have them then we 'need' them to counter them without actually launching an attack. A shield which is also a weapon. A necessary evil for male masturbators, if you will.

Quoted from LH

I can pretty much confirm that the UK doesn't have chemical or biological weapons. Obviously though the expertise is in place to create such vile weapons should the need arise (which it wouldn't because us Brits like to fight like gents and only fight back should we get started on (UKSF excepted)).

Nuclear weapons are unfortunately a necessary evil. In an ideal world nobody would have them. As long as our adversaries have them then we 'need' them to counter them without actually launching an attack. A shield which is also a weapon. A necessary evil for male masturbators, if you will.

The main reason you have nuclear weapons is every other country believes you WILL use them,

Telling them in advance that you will never use them is plain loony.

If a nuclear 'deterrent' is so important, why are the Germans not bothered about lacking one? Is it because they are members of Nato so realise that there is no chance they will be invaded/nuked by the Russians?

Our nuclear 'deterrent' doesn't deter anything and is there just for a bit of post-imperial willy-waving. It's a subsidy to the already massive US military as we need to buy most of the technology from them in any case. As least the French are sensible enough to develop their own deployment systems instead of buying them in, though they are still obviously a complete waste of money.

In the event that we deployed our nuclear weapons, most of the country would end up as a radioactive ruin because it's only the Russians who could be any realistic threat due to geographical proximity and they've got a lot more nukes than us. And they'd be obliterated by the Yanks if they nuked us as well.

Most senior generals admit the nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money - once they've retirned, of course.

Quoted from Grim74

When Corbyn speaks I will admit I sometimes find myself nodding my head in agreement with him and then just before you know it WHAM! A bit stinking turd comes out his mouth and reality hits home he wants to disband the U.K. Armed forces, have unlimited immigration, give up our nuclear deterrent, give the Falklands back to Argentina, Gibraltar back to Spain, allow a SNP referendum, no doubt a Brexit 2nd referendum, backs the IRA, plans to put every adult on benefits, actually believes socialism works, and worst of all he wants Abbot as his deputy PM!  Of course he's a flipping clown.

I usually try to keep out of political discussions. I have my opinion, you have yours, and I generally think let's try and find some common ground and agree to compromise. If people have extremely polarised views, that's unlikely. But come on, how can you possibly say it's Corbyn that would cause the UK to be disbanded? It is literally the Conservative  / UKIP instigated Brexit that will cause Scotland to leave the UK and probably Gibraltar and Northern Ireland too. Brexit may work, it may not, but every one will want what's best for them in the outcome. This means Scottish Independence at the very least, and this will be entirely the responsibility of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it's ironically called).

Quoted from Dan

I usually try to keep out of political discussions. I have my opinion, you have yours, and I generally think let's try and find some common ground and agree to compromise. If people have extremely polarised views, that's unlikely. But come on, how can you possibly say it's Corbyn that would cause the UK to be disbanded? It is literally the Conservative  / UKIP instigated Brexit that will cause Scotland to leave the UK and probably Gibraltar and Northern Ireland too. Brexit may work, it may not, but every one will want what's best for them in the outcome. This means Scottish Independence at the very least, and this will be entirely the responsibility of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it's ironically called).

Gibraltar will not leave the UK the mass majority want to stay as part of the UK and now that they have seen how the EU dictatorship wanted to stitch them up the majority would now vote to leave the corrupt union as well.
The democratic majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland still want to remain as part of the UK any talk of Scottish independence when they want to be controlled by Brussels is just moronic.

Quoted from Maringer

Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you just not understand what was written?

Yes, Thatcher hacked back public spending to levels not seen since before the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state. Somehow, you seem to think that this is a good thing! Spending on health, education, roads and other infrastructure is a bad thing, is it?

Anyway, it is well known that the public infrastructure was practically falling to pieces when the New Labour government got into power and much of their expenditure was to fix what Thatcher wilfully broke - no end of spending on schools and roads, for example, though much of this was foolishly done under costly PFI schemes (pioneered by the Tories), to 'keep it off the books'. Governments can borrow money at greatly lower rates than the cost of PFI so this was idiotic. Amusingly enough, this was one of the sticks used by the Tories to beat Brown - only for Osborne to double-down on PFI and expand it further once they got into power! Liars and crooks, as they say.

You seem to be getting rather confused about the government expenditure situation. The global financial crisis first began in late 2007 and the excrement really hit the fan in September 2008. The increased government expenditure which occurs after tax receipts drop off a cliff in a recession and expenses go up (unemployment and housing benefit and the like) is always delayed by a year or so. So yes, of course expenditure was enormously greater in 2009/2010 which was right in the aftermath of the initial crisis! In just the same way that it increased massively under the Tories following the recession in the early 1990s. Claiming that the huge deficit in 2008-2010 was the fault of Labour profligacy is just idiocy. You are contradicting yourself when you say that you aren't blaming Labour for the financial crisis but then attempt to do so!

Borrowing as a percentage of GDP ranged between 2.4% and 3.4% from 2002 to 2008 (some debt was repaid in three out of the four years prior to that). As inflation was bumbling around at just under 2%, this means the Labour government was effectively borrowing around 1% per year. Not ideal, but hardly a disaster and very low in comparison to Tory borrowing during much of the 1980s and 1990s.

Anyway, Brown's "end to boom and bust" comment was just foolish hubris as they really thought they had the tools to achieve this without paying enough attention to the credit boom which was only made possible by the nonsense explained in "The Great Short". Still unbelievable that nobody in power had the faintest idea what was occurring behind the scenes but then it was all so ridiculously stupid that you wouldn't believe the bankers could make such catastrophic errors.

Regarding the claims about the likelihood of immediate catastrophe following the Brexit vote, I defy you to name one respected economist who claimed this would actually occur. Obviously, your man Osborne (who I imagine you praised to high heaven before the last election?) doesn't count because he's not respected, he's full of shite and he's not an economist. As with the deficits following a recession, things only begin to get dodgy some time after an event.

Inflation just now kicking in following the expected devaluation of the pound so we're getting to stage where the 'fun' has started to begin, so to speak Last month, for example, inflation rose higher than average wages for the first time in a couple of years so we're getting poorer already (and after the weakest 'recovery' from a recession for a century). Next step will be business uncertainty due to the fact that we don't hold any cards at all in the bargaining process and we'll see lots of companies relocating overseas but the real crap will only really occur in 2 years when we leave. There is no way we can get a better deal from the EU than is on offer to their other members so, even with the best will in the world (which doesn't exist), we'll be worse off. May and co (who will most likely be in power) seem more clueless than most - see Fox's ignorance about trade deals, for example - so I reckon it will be the hardest of hardest Brexits.

Anecdotally, one of my mates has recently accepted redundancy. The business where he works was previously expanding but they've been screwed because everything in their industry is traded in dollars. The depreciation of the pound has bunked up prices in the region of 15% on average and it has made much of their business untenable.

Incidentally, your hyperbolic jingoism sounds a bit flipping ridiculous. Claiming you're more patriotic because you wanted to leave the EU when others wanted to stay is just nonsense. People voting to remain were just as patriotic as you, wanting the best for their country. When you start sounding like Nigel Farage, you're developing a problem.  

Similarly the 'proud sovereign country' nonsense. We were a sovereign country before the Brexit vote, just one which was part of the world's largest trading bloc. In a couple of years, we'll still be a sovereign country, though most likely a much poorer one.

Anyway, I'll be a bit busy over the next few weeks so won't be able to more than dip into this forum once in a while.

Edit: Just read back my post which I dipped into and out of over the afternoon and it's a bit more aggressive in tone than planned. Apologies for that - no time to edit now, but the main points still stand.

No warnings eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....tabase-released.html

I beg to differ voice of doom, how can you be sovereign when you are controlled and dictated to by Brussels, how can you be sovereign when you can't even control your borders? I would go further in my view we are not even a Country anymore just a bit part state of a corrupt union, well hopefully we will be getting it back.

Quoted from Grim74

Gibraltar will not leave the UK the mass majority want to stay as part of the UK and now that they have seen how the EU dictatorship wanted to stitch them up the majority would now vote to leave the corrupt union as well.
The democratic majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland still want to remain as part of the UK any talk of Scottish independence when they want to be controlled by Brussels is just moronic.

But the very fact we even have to discuss this is because of the Conservative and Unionist Party, not Jeremy Corbyn. If the UK breaks up, it will be 100% because of Brexit.

And if the Scottish want to be ruled by Brussels, who could honestly blame them? They've been copulated over by the English (and the Tories) for decades.

Quoted from Grim74

Gibraltar will not leave the UK the mass majority want to stay as part of the UK and now that they have seen how the EU dictatorship wanted to stitch them up the majority would now vote to leave the corrupt union as well.

How did you work that out? Gibraltar was 96% remain. That's a pretty significant swing.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

How did you work that out? Gibraltar was 96% remain. That's a pretty significant swing.

Talking to expats, there is now a widespread feeling of betrayal by the EU, not exactly scientific I know but just like here pre Brexit, if you was to ignore all the mainstream media, Gov propaganda and the dodgy polls,outside London there was a strong feeling people were going to vote in favour of Brexit.

Quoted from Dan

And if the Scottish want to be ruled by Brussels, who could honestly blame them? They've been copulated over by the English (and the Tories) for decades.

What!! with the flawed Barnett formula?

Quoted from Grim74

No warnings eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....tabase-released.html

I beg to differ voice of doom, how can you be sovereign when you are controlled and dictated to by Brussels, how can you be sovereign when you can't even control your borders? I would go further in my view we are not even a Country anymore just a bit part state of a corrupt union, well hopefully we will be getting it back.

You'll have to be more precise about the claims of profligacy, I'm afraid. The link of files from the Tortygraph contains 50-odd documents and the only mention from a quick scan is about cabinet profligacy - i.e. cabinet members spending too much on cars and expenses and the like. Probably tens of millions at stake here, not tens of billions, so not even a drop in the ocean in the bigger picture. In the era where almost everybody regardless of party (though not Corbyn, of course  ) was scamming the system, this isn't too surprising. John 'Two Jags' Prescott, for example.

I can pretty much guarantee that there was no warning about the bigger picture, not least because the government wasn't massively overspending as you still seem to thing for some bizarre reason. Think sensibly - if there really had been some sort of warning about the amounts being spent by the government, the Torygraph would have shouted it out from the rooftops when it got its grubby mitts on these documents back in 2011! In other words, nothing to see here - move on.

As for your second point, we weren't in any way controlled and dictated to by the EU. We'd agreed to abide by certain rules and regulations which we'd helped to write and could have vetoed at any point as they were written and the fact remains that the vast majority of these regulations will be duplicated pretty much as they stand when we exit the EU.

Seems a bit harsh to call the UK a corrupt union, but I suppose you're probably not too far wrong...  

Quoted from Grim74

Talking to expats, there is now a widespread feeling of betrayal by the EU, not exactly scientific I know but just like here pre Brexit, if you was to ignore all the mainstream media, Gov propaganda and the dodgy polls,outside London there was a strong feeling people were going to vote in favour of Brexit.

Definitely not scientific, nor convincing that Gibraltar has swung from last year being 96% in favour of remain to being in favour of Leave now.

Quoted from Grim74

Gibraltar will not leave the UK the mass majority want to stay as part of the UK and now that they have seen how the EU dictatorship wanted to stitch them up the majority would now vote to leave the corrupt union as well.
The democratic majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland still want to remain as part of the UK any talk of Scottish independence when they want to be controlled by Brussels is just moronic.

My partner lived in Gibraltar for ten years with her husband before he died. A prevalent view held by people who have actually experienced life there is that the Gibraltarians can be guilty of wanting their cake and eating it. They want to be part of the U.K. but they also love having the benefits of being able to cross the border with Spain at will. The vast majority of their luxury goods come through the land border with Spain. The huge vote to Remain was fuelled by people who wanted the status quo to be maintained. Coming out of the E.U. will damage beyond repair that cosy relationship because logistically we will not be able to provide them with the goods etc. that they can get currently. It is perfectly possible that the Spanish will consider some sort of border control once Brexit happens. On that basis I doubt that if the Referendum was re-run there would be any change of note in the perecentages voting in/out. It actually amazes me how the tide of opinion has swung round in favour of the Gibraltarians. After the referendum result was announced there were more than a few Brexiteers gloating about the fact 96% didn't get their hoped for outcome.

Quoted from Grim74

Talking to expats, there is now a widespread feeling of betrayal by the EU, not exactly scientific I know but just like here pre Brexit, if you was to ignore all the mainstream media, Gov propaganda and the dodgy polls,outside London there was a strong feeling people were going to vote in favour of Brexit.

Genuine question and in the interests of debate could you expand on where this widespread feeling of betrayal has come from?

Quoted from Maringer

You'll have to be more precise about the claims of profligacy, I'm afraid. The link of files from the Tortygraph contains 50-odd documents and the only mention from a quick scan is about cabinet profligacy - i.e. cabinet members spending too much on cars and expenses and the like. Probably tens of millions at stake here, not tens of billions, so not even a drop in the ocean in the bigger picture. In the era where almost everybody regardless of party (though not Corbyn, of course  ) was scamming the system, this isn't too surprising. John 'Two Jags' Prescott, for example.

I can pretty much guarantee that there was no warning about the bigger picture, not least because the government wasn't massively overspending as you still seem to thing for some bizarre reason. Think sensibly - if there really had been some sort of warning about the amounts being spent by the government, the Torygraph would have shouted it out from the rooftops when it got its grubby mitts on these documents back in 2011! In other words, nothing to see here - move on.

As for your second point, we weren't in any way controlled and dictated to by the EU. We'd agreed to abide by certain rules and regulations which we'd helped to write and could have vetoed at any point as they were written and the fact remains that the vast majority of these regulations will be duplicated pretty much as they stand when we exit the EU.

Seems a bit harsh to call the UK a corrupt union, but I suppose you're probably not too far wrong...  

You couldn't be bothered to read the spending review then, anyway it's just the telegraph and not the Guardian😕 Even in the Big Short film the first warning reports of the imminent sub-prime disaster came in early 2007, you would of thought soon to be adviser to JP Morgan Tony Blair would have picked up theses warning and have his government put safeguards in place. At least he admitted is party should of taken a tougher fiscal position than they did.

In Blairs autobiography -  A Journey, (2010 I think) he says  "The economic crisis should have been (and indeed still can be) the moment when, instead of lazily succumbing to the idea that more state spending dressed up as fiscal stimulus is the sole answer, we took the opportunity to accelerate and sharpen reform".

Just one other thing you mentioned  the PFI debacle earlier would youn not count this then as an overspend? Just a mere amount of billions more off the balance sheet I suppose. I'm sure you don't mind my children and my children's children paying for These labour vanity projects for years to come.

Anyway nice to see what we would be getting under comrade Corbyrn as his policy's start to become clear, yay! a tax hit for everyone, especially those earning over £70000!! God how they hate aspiration.

And I'm sure as the anti Brit that you are, you will be in full agreement with them by putting the EU workers first in this Country by securing their rights,well before any deal takes place for your fellow countrymen..

Quoted from barralad

Genuine question and in the interests of debate could you expand on where this widespread feeling of betrayal has come from?

Family member who was based there for a number of years still in contact with friends over there, out of interest internet ex pat forums and radio station phone ins I visited at the time during the Spanish veto news, I also recently read an article in the Olive Press that quoted some gibraltarians as now quoting the EU as revulsion