In line with my policy of betting transparency, please be advised that I have today placed a bet of £150 with Betfred at 2/5 on Conservative overall majority. I intended to wait until the YouGov MRP but the price was falling so quickly I thought it best to take the risk. #BigBoyPants
For @Big_G_NorthWales and others who do not bet or might like the process explained, it goes like this:
I went into the bookies and gave him £150. In turn he gave me a white slip with "Next Election: Conservatives Overall Majority 2/5" on it. Betfred is a fixed odds bookie (sometimes known as a "sportsbook" bookie). So the "2/5" means for every 5 I give him, he will give me 2 back if successful. So if Con does get an OM I will get £60 back (60=150*2/5) plus my original stake of £150. If Cons does not get an OM I will get nothing.
Well done you for putting your own money at risk. I don't bet because I know I'm the type of person who could get addicted. My brother in law made a tidy sum on Brexit referendum night based on what was being said on here though.
I am not the only on here who bets, and some bet considerably more. The biggest gambler that I am aware of was @Dromedary , who claimed (and was backed up by others) to have won six figures on Referendum night. Others who bet include @Casino_Royale , @isam, possibly also @TheScreamingEagles and @MaxPB.
As for addiction: I find betting genuinely scary (to the point of only going into shops late at night as there are fewer people there) so I'm kinda self-inoculated against it. Most of my bets have been for insurance purposes (eg Trump win), some have been because I thought it would happen (eg London Mayor), some a combination of both (eg EU Ref)
The "we're the fifth biggest economy so we can afford it" argument from the left is utterly ridiculous. We're one of the biggest economies in the world because of our liberalised, free-market economy, not because of socialism. If we adopted Labour's crazy far-left platform, we'd be on a rapid descent towards poverty as business, investment, and the "evil rich" fled the country as fast as they could...
Boring.
Britain is great - we should be able to afford the best pensions and a great health service.
If you want to stand up after a decade of austerity and say we still can't afford anything, please do, but the public seem to like a "yes we can" attitude
But you have to be realistic
The public is literately laughing at your policies
Don't believe me, that's coming from your own focus groups.
I personally don't have any policies. While I appreciate that something like free broadband may not have gone down well - genuine extra money for pensions and the NHS are going to be popular.
The Tories could have been generous and still undercut Labour massively, but their caution may just give Labour a simple positive argument (and let's face it, they need something big to go their way).
These momentum trolls stay up late now don’t they.
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
If he thought Biden or another broadly pro Wall St Democrat would win the primary he wouldn't be getting involved. I think from a betting perspective perhaps the more relevant consideration is that even if he doesn't win, if he burns hundreds of millions of dollars in the primary, I suspect a large chunk of it will go on assailing some of the other candidates, most likely Warren. And he can start the blitz day one, without having to fundraise.
Bloomberg's first TV ad hit tonight. It is a very positive message about his ability to fix things. His only target it Trump, not fellow applicants for the job
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Wikipedia says the Tory candidate in Leeds North East and the Brexit candidate in Glenrothes have also been officially suspended, although of course they can't be removed from the ballot paper.
In line with my policy of betting transparency, please be advised that I have today placed a bet of £150 with Betfred at 2/5 on Conservative overall majority. I intended to wait until the YouGov MRP but the price was falling so quickly I thought it best to take the risk. #BigBoyPants
For @Big_G_NorthWales and others who do not bet or might like the process explained, it goes like this:
I went into the bookies and gave him £150. In turn he gave me a white slip with "Next Election: Conservatives Overall Majority 2/5" on it. Betfred is a fixed odds bookie (sometimes known as a "sportsbook" bookie). So the "2/5" means for every 5 I give him, he will give me 2 back if successful. So if Con does get an OM I will get £60 back (60=150*2/5) plus my original stake of £150. If Cons does not get an OM I will get nothing.
Well done you for putting your own money at risk. I don't bet because I know I'm the type of person who could get addicted. My brother in law made a tidy sum on Brexit referendum night based on what was being said on here though.
I am not the only on here who bets, and some bet considerably more. The biggest gambler that I am aware of was @Dromedary , who claimed (and was backed up by others) to have won six figures on Referendum night. Others who bet include @Casino_Royale , @isam, possibly also @TheScreamingEagles and @MaxPB.
As for addiction: I find betting genuinely scary (to the point of only going into shops late at night as there are fewer people there) so I'm kinda self-inoculated against it. Most of my bets have been for insurance purposes (eg Trump win), some have been because I thought it would happen (eg London Mayor), some a combination of both (eg EU Ref)
If I remember correctly someone who's now banned from this site claimed to have won about £50,000 on the Brexit referendum.
Wikipedia says the Tory candidate in Leeds North East and the Brexit candidate in Glenrothes have also been officially suspended, although of course they can't be removed from the ballot paper.
So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.
But.
I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.
In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...
Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.
If he thought Biden or another broadly pro Wall St Democrat would win the primary he wouldn't be getting involved. I think from a betting perspective perhaps the more relevant consideration is that even if he doesn't win, if he burns hundreds of millions of dollars in the primary, I suspect a large chunk of it will go on assailing some of the other candidates, most likely Warren. And he can start the blitz day one, without having to fundraise.
Bloomberg's first TV ad hit tonight. It is a very positive message about his ability to fix things. His only target it Trump, not fellow applicants for the job
I doubt Bloomberg thinks he's got much chance of the nomination, he just doesn't want to see President Warren. It's obvious what's going on here - billionaires feeling slightly threatened that they might have to pay a fair share of tax for a change.
As for Biden - the influence-peddling with his son getting massive paychecks for being on the board of a Ukrainian company might not be illegal, but it's obviously corrupt. Dems should drop him, and differentiate themselves clearly from the nepotism of Trump.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.
Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.
Thank god.
It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.
The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.
This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
I’ve recently spent some time with a large smattering of Americans, left and right.
They all agreed that the age of the candidates is a real issue. They all despaired of it, and wanted change. Reps and Dems.
If this is a widespread feeling someone like Buttigieg has an in-built advantage.
What happened to the generation born in the fifties and sixties, who should now be in their fifties and sixties?
All the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by the triumph of the gerontocracy. That age doesn’t mean anything other than living doesn’t stop them believing that they’re something special. They should just fuck off and die.
Yes, that was pretty much the attitude of the Americans I met. Fuck odd and die, coffin-dodgers. And some of these people were in their 70s
Hillary got a lot of stick just for this.
Mr Byronic - at the last election there was a user called SeanT who went hysterical at the Tory manifesto. I remember reading his comments avidly before I joined this site. Sadly he no longer contributes.
How do you feel about the manifesto?
I worry it lacks one or two retail offers. But I don’t instantly feel it’s calamitous.
We're getting screwed over by greedy old Tory farts who "Stole Our Future"™ by dragging us out of Our Beloved EU and casting us into the outer darkness, but expect us still to pay for their ring-fenced, gold-plated, Triple-Locked pensions!
Labour:
These older women have suffered an awful injustice because they had to work a couple of years longer than they wanted before getting their ring-fenced, gold-plated, Triple-Locked pensions. We must give them £58 billion now!
Young people:
Let's have a voter registration drive to make sure as many of us can vote Labour as possible. Ohhhhh Jeremy Corbyn! Ohhhhh Jeremy Corbyn!
It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.
The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.
This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
I wouldn't argue with that.
It's another potential banana skin that the Tories have avoided which just leaves the final debate for Corbyn to have a game-changing moment.
Assuming there are no black swans and also assuming the DK's don't fall in behind Labour on the day.
Verdict on public spending: Conservatives promise an extra £3bn a year, Labour £83bn a year.
This does not, however, include the £650bn over the next Parliament that John McDonnell has, apparently, concluded is hidden down the back of a sofa somewhere in the Treasury to fund Labour's proposals for new state investment bodies. Almost nobody seems to have noticed this at all.
It's not just the political class in this country that is useless. The media is also remarkably negligent.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
Evidently Corbyn's followers don't grasp the difference between overall and per-capita wealth. China is the world's second largest economy, but nobody would say they can afford better health care than we can. We are about the 15th-20th richest economy per head in the world, so we can afford public services that are fairly average for industrialised countries.
Maybe Labour supporters have noticed that the UK has been spending less than other similar countries on healthcare - and so despite the efficiency of funding through taxation - we need to increase to compensate.
The "we're the fifth biggest economy so we can afford it" argument from the left is utterly ridiculous. We're one of the biggest economies in the world because of our liberalised, free-market economy, not because of socialism. If we adopted Labour's crazy far-left platform, we'd be on a rapid descent towards poverty as business, investment, and the "evil rich" fled the country as fast as they could...
Boring.
Britain is great - we should be able to afford the best pensions and a great health service.
If you want to stand up after a decade of austerity and say we still can't afford anything, please do, but the public seem to like a "yes we can" attitude
But you have to be realistic
The public is literately laughing at your policies
Don't believe me, that's coming from your own focus groups.
I personally don't have any policies. While I appreciate that something like free broadband may not have gone down well - genuine extra money for pensions and the NHS are going to be popular.
The Tories could have been generous and still undercut Labour massively, but their caution may just give Labour a simple positive argument (and let's face it, they need something big to go their way).
These momentum trolls stay up late now don’t they.
About as subtle as a brick and also about as persuasive.
Although mummy and daddy sent them to private school and bought them a little apartment in the city near their little job, they still have the wit, charm and intelligence of a retarded woodlouse.
Ah. I did give you the benefit of the doubt with the momentum comment - but this is bizarrely rude.
I had assumed the idea of this website was to discuss what issues might cause movement in the betting markets. I was suggesting that the Tories may have left the door open for Labour to claw back a little (and I mean "a little"), when a touch more generosity (which they've been trailing in terms of rhetoric for months), could have slammed that door shut.
If you’re invited to a night out with an alcoholic you don’t keep up with him and impress him by having 3 or 4 pints. You stick to soft drinks, have a good time and hope he learns the error of his ways.
And you don't accept the offer of a lift home in his car, thank you very much.
A good friend would take his car keys off him - and send him off into the night in a taxi.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Of course, both sides extensively test variations of their visceral messaging in focus groups to optimise their cut-through.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
The question in 2 weeks time is how many people have thought to themselves “McDonnell is doing something for me, I’ll vote Labour” and how many think Labours spending pledges are overbaked and reckless.
At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.
I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
And Corbyn wouldn’t be doing this considering he’ll be spending 6 months renegotiating the deal and holding another referendum?
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
... but has an explicit democratic mandate. Or actually three of them and could be about to get a fourth.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
The question in 2 weeks time is how many people have thought to themselves “McDonnell is doing something for me, I’ll vote Labour” and how many think Labours spending pledges are overbaked and reckless.
At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.
I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.
I’m not sure Corbyn wouldn’t be advocating an identical platform even if Brexit had never occurred. Remember: he was elected as leader well before it in 2015.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
And Corbyn wouldn’t be doing this considering he’ll be spending 6 months renegotiating the deal and holding another referendum?
It would be quite funny if a motley Labour minority Government led by Corbyn were to renegotiate the WA, hold a referendum on it and then “lose” it.
They’d then be obliged to ‘Get Brexit Done’, which might have a popcorn factor off the charts.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
That third paragraph is right. There's going to be a lot of sound and fury about what 'getting Brexit done' actually means. It's going to be realised soon, probably some time in the summer, that not having representatives in the various Councils and Committees is that we'll be in a 'take it or leave' situation over something some at least sections of the Press and public are really exercised about. Could well be fishing.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
The question in 2 weeks time is how many people have thought to themselves “McDonnell is doing something for me, I’ll vote Labour” and how many think Labours spending pledges are overbaked and reckless.
At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.
I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.
It is 2015 all over again. The worry is not that voters believe Labour is reckless but rather, as in 2015, voters think Labour has correctly identified all the problems but that its programme is so ambitious as to be undeliverable.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.
There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
We know the conclusions of the Oakervee review. It will recommend HS2 go ahead as planned with one difference - phase 1 should go to Crewe as well as Birmingham.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.
Weird.
Street protests in this instance are symptoms, not causes. They seem to represent a huge groundswell of frustration in Hong Kong at Beijing's meddling coupled with the official government's corruption, incompetence and lethargy.
Therefore, people already disillusioned with the government are likely to be further unimpressed by its response to the breakdown of law and order.
The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.
Weird. </blockquote They are if you have an alternative democratic process as a way to make improvements. But against inflexible dictatorships it is the only way.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.
Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.
Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.
Thank god.
It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.
The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.
This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
Blue Labour towns have been deceived into believing that Brexit will solve all their problems.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.
Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
Labour increased it per capita by something like 60%. So you need to find around 35m immigrants to be right.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Stop dog whistling about immigration jesus christ. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.
Weird.
It got out the vote. The previous regime held all the power on a 25% turnout, they probably would not have done on 75% ever. Same issue in English local government. The turnout is a strong determinant of the result.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.
Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
That would be George Osborne, not Labour. The Cameron/Osborne government chose austerity rather than growth, and so choked off the recovery they inherited from Labour. Even IDS resigned over Osborne's cuts!
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
Didn't a lot of the European migrants actually work in and around the NHS. Seem to frequently.. once upon a time anyway ..... encounter European doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses etc. When I worked in GP services we used to reckon that while a young (under 40 or so) man would have a couple of prescriptions a month, a young woman perhaps 4 an over 65 of either sex would have ten. (Mrs C and I are on about 4 each doing quite well!)
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
By that argument 1997 was not a mandate for some of the things the Labour government did. There is no-one more appalled by low turnouts in local government elections but I am sorry - If you don't vote your vote does not count. And the same will be true with the rigged referendum Labour have cooked up. Hate it as much as we might every leaver will owe it to turn out and vote. Always vote, and if you don't then STFU.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
By that argument 1997 was not a mandate for some of the things the Labour government did. There is no-one more appalled by low turnouts in local government elections but I am sorry - If you don't vote your vote does not count. And the same will be true with the rigged referendum Labour have cooked up. Hate it as much as we might every leaver will owe it to turn out and vote. Always vote, and if you don't then STFU.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.
Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
Labour increased it per capita by something like 60%. So you need to find around 35m immigrants to be right.
Labour increase it by 7% a year in real terms from 2000 to 2008.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Stop dog whistling about immigration jesus christ. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
And the Tories have not yet revealed their plans for migrant numbers. Currently under this Tory government these are running at circa 300 000 net per year, only 1/3 EU. Apparently we are not planning to stop EU migration entirely, but a 50% cut in EU migration still works out roughly a quarter million immigrants per year.
Indeed with returning "expats" from the Costas, and reduced migration there post Brexit, the NET migration figures may well worsen, even with reduced inward migration.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
Yep - there are three times more UK citizens of pensionable age living in the EU27 than there are EU27 citizens of pensionable age living in the UK.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
Didn't a lot of the European migrants actually work in and around the NHS. Seem to frequently.. once upon a time anyway ..... encounter European doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses etc. When I worked in GP services we used to reckon that while a young (under 40 or so) man would have a couple of prescriptions a month, a young woman perhaps 4 an over 65 of either sex would have ten. (Mrs C and I are on about 4 each doing quite well!)
5.9% of working adults work in healthcare. 3 million migrants on top of the 60 million population is a 5% increase in population [not all will work of course].
If you add 5% of the population via immigration of course some of that 5% will work in healthcare. Doesn't mean that they automatically all or even disproportionately do.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Huh? They work in the tourism industry and agriculture. Indeed, there were over 30,000 in 2017 but that’s dropped a bit since:
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
Indeed the Remainers in Parliament made a tremendous strategic mistake rejecting May's flaccidly soft Brexit.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.
This is nothing to do with Corbyn.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
You must have incredibly low standards.
The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
You must have incredibly low standards.
How many more people did the NHS treat last year compared to 2010 ? Or 1950 ?
As for other metrics - the range and scope of treatments and drugs available increase year on year - making free provision unsustainable forever.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
You must have incredibly low standards.
The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
If she's looking to remedy 'any injustice' then what about the generations of men who had to work five extra years because they were born male? That was more of an injustice than WASPI boomers losing a little bit of the privilege they had.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
I think he comes from a Northern mining family, which explains the harshness of his views. Those that make it from that sort of background are often very unforgiving, they put down to talent and hard work the entirety of their success, and forget or minimise the element of luck and chance.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
I grew up in the West Midlands. I am the product of Polish, Russian, French, and Ukrainian immigration. I know about immigration.
I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.
Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.
Thank god.
It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.
The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.
This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
Blue Labour towns have been deceived into believing that Brexit will solve all their problems.
Both Arron Banks and Dominic Cummings from the two main Leave proponent groups have acknowledged this. There is also a striking correlation between the impact of austerity on an area and its voting Leave.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
You must have incredibly low standards.
The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
Literally irrelevant. None of that will solve the problems in your fetishized ‘northern towns’.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
I suspect their plan is to say nothing about anything unless directly pressed. They are a bit over cautious.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
You must have incredibly low standards.
The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
Yes we were. For every £4 being spent £1 was being borrowed.
We had to turn on the printing presses and have a decade of relative austerity in order to partially get ourselves out of Brown's mess. Countries that got into a deeper mire had to have real austerity where spending really was cut rather than increasing slower like here - and in those countries healthcare spending was cut rather than increasing spending slower like here.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
Labour did not break the economy. Even the Thatcher government blamed the 1970s malaise on the Barber boom and oil price shock rather than Labour. As for the 2000s, the global financial crisis was global, and was not caused by Labour.
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
Literally irrelevant. None of that will solve the problems in your fetishized ‘northern towns’.
Did you see what I replied to? It was completely relevant to what I replied to, I didn't reply to a comment about 'northern towns'.
I live in a Northern town myself so I don't need you to tell me about the North thank you.
People underestimate what people think Brexit will solve.
They think there will be plentiful council housing, they think all the NHS problems will be fixed, they think school class sizes will reduce, they think there will be plentiful good jobs, they think crime will significantly reduce.
They have been deceived. Simple as that.
When reality catches up the retribution will be crushing.
Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
I think he comes from a Northern mining family, which explains the harshness of his views. Those that make it from that sort of background are often very unforgiving, they put down to talent and hard work the entirety of their success, and forget or minimise the element of luck and chance.
A Midlands mining family, please.
And what in your background makes you so unbearably smug?
Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
Literally irrelevant. None of that will solve the problems in your fetishized ‘northern towns’.
Did you see what I replied to? It was completely relevant to what I replied to, I didn't reply to a comment about 'northern towns'.
I live in a Northern town myself so I don't need you to tell me about the North thank you.
And I don’t need you to continue misleading people about what Brexit will or won’t do.
We all know your desire for Brexit is simply ideological. It has nothing to do with economics or improved lives.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?
You must have incredibly low standards.
The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
Yes we were. For every £4 being spent £1 was being borrowed.
We had to turn on the printing presses and have a decade of relative austerity in order to partially get ourselves out of Brown's mess. Countries that got into a deeper mire had to have real austerity where spending really was cut rather than increasing slower like here - and in those countries healthcare spending was cut rather than increasing spending slower like here.
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
Labour did not break the economy. Even the Thatcher government blamed the 1970s malaise on the Barber boom and oil price shock rather than Labour. As for the 2000s, the global financial crisis was global, and was not caused by Labour.
Recessions happen, its a fact of life. The fact that Labour overspent prior to the recession and left us so vulnerable to a recession was caused by Labour - and Brown's hubris in thinking he had "ended boom and bust".
Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.
Quite the opposite. I'm not saying we never had recessions, but recessions happen. We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.
We had a recession under the prior Tory government.
The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.
Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.
Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year. 2002 30.05 2003 31.26 2004 32.52 2005 35.6 2006 36.67 2007 37.25
After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.
Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
Equality is not an injustice.
It’s not just the affordability which is the issue. It is wrong in principle; wrong in law - based on the court cases so far; and utterly unfair to other women, men and the young.
As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
Intact!
Worst stats on record.
Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
Figure 1 on the below link doesn't show what you remember, but is certainly consistent with it.
Comments
As for addiction: I find betting genuinely scary (to the point of only going into shops late at night as there are fewer people there) so I'm kinda self-inoculated against it. Most of my bets have been for insurance purposes (eg Trump win), some have been because I thought it would happen (eg London Mayor), some a combination of both (eg EU Ref)
https://twitter.com/M_PaulMcNamara/status/1198645309192228864?s=20
https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014
"If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.
"In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."
"One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."
https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers
I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.
Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.
Thank god.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-candidate-suspended-amjad-bashir-antisemitism-leeds-election-a9210591.html
Brexit "rampant" homophobia:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-party-withdraws-support-from-glenrothes-candidate-over-rampant-homophobia-1-5048256
As for Biden - the influence-peddling with his son getting massive paychecks for being on the board of a Ukrainian company might not be illegal, but it's obviously corrupt. Dems should drop him, and differentiate themselves clearly from the nepotism of Trump.
Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.
This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
We're getting screwed over by greedy old Tory farts who "Stole Our Future"™ by dragging us out of Our Beloved EU and casting us into the outer darkness, but expect us still to pay for their ring-fenced, gold-plated, Triple-Locked pensions!
Labour:
These older women have suffered an awful injustice because they had to work a couple of years longer than they wanted before getting their ring-fenced, gold-plated, Triple-Locked pensions. We must give them £58 billion now!
Young people:
Let's have a voter registration drive to make sure as many of us can vote Labour as possible. Ohhhhh Jeremy Corbyn! Ohhhhh Jeremy Corbyn!
It's another potential banana skin that the Tories have avoided which just leaves the final debate for Corbyn to have a game-changing moment.
Assuming there are no black swans and also assuming the DK's don't fall in behind Labour on the day.
This does not, however, include the £650bn over the next Parliament that John McDonnell has, apparently, concluded is hidden down the back of a sofa somewhere in the Treasury to fund Labour's proposals for new state investment bodies. Almost nobody seems to have noticed this at all.
It's not just the political class in this country that is useless. The media is also remarkably negligent.
Worst stats on record.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=GB-FR-DE&name_desc=true
A good friend would take his car keys off him - and send him off into the night in a taxi.
Just a thought, Labour voters.
Although, I’m not sure what the Lib Dems do.
I don’t like it.
At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.
I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.
The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.
It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.
This is his dream.
They’d then be obliged to ‘Get Brexit Done’, which might have a popcorn factor off the charts.
But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".
Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".
You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
Your comment on the test has not aged well.
Weird.
Still two and a half weeks to go. Plenty of time for a skilled bungler to cock things up.
Therefore, people already disillusioned with the government are likely to be further unimpressed by its response to the breakdown of law and order.
Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
When I worked in GP services we used to reckon that while a young (under 40 or so) man would have a couple of prescriptions a month, a young woman perhaps 4 an over 65 of either sex would have ten. (Mrs C and I are on about 4 each doing quite well!)
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/money-spent-nhs
So I think your 60% per capita figure needs some modification.
Overall spending trebled in cash terms, but that doesn’t take galumphing inflation within the sector into account.
At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.
Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.
The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.
So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.
I'm proud of my party's side of that record.
Indeed with returning "expats" from the Costas, and reduced migration there post Brexit, the NET migration figures may well worsen, even with reduced inward migration.
You must have incredibly low standards.
3 million migrants on top of the 60 million population is a 5% increase in population [not all will work of course].
If you add 5% of the population via immigration of course some of that 5% will work in healthcare. Doesn't mean that they automatically all or even disproportionately do.
https://www.devonlive.com/news/reality-devons-27000-europeans-living-2274996
Edited for wrong link.
Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?
As for other metrics - the range and scope of treatments and drugs available increase year on year - making free provision unsustainable forever.
Your dog whistling is just that; a disgrace.
We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.
This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
We had to turn on the printing presses and have a decade of relative austerity in order to partially get ourselves out of Brown's mess. Countries that got into a deeper mire had to have real austerity where spending really was cut rather than increasing slower like here - and in those countries healthcare spending was cut rather than increasing spending slower like here.
But we still kept the NHS going, onwards and upwards in it spending.
I live in a Northern town myself so I don't need you to tell me about the North thank you.
They think there will be plentiful council housing, they think all the NHS problems will be fixed, they think school class sizes will reduce, they think there will be plentiful good jobs, they think crime will significantly reduce.
They have been deceived. Simple as that.
When reality catches up the retribution will be crushing.
And what in your background makes you so unbearably smug?
We all know your desire for Brexit is simply ideological. It has nothing to do with economics or improved lives.
FPT
It’s not just the affordability which is the issue. It is wrong in principle; wrong in law - based on the court cases so far; and utterly unfair to other women, men and the young.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/five-year-forward-view/next-steps-on-the-nhs-five-year-forward-view/the-nhs-in-2017/