Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s big speech – David Herdson’s take

SystemSystem Posts: 12,051
edited August 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s big speech – David Herdson’s take

2/n There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:– Free university tuition– Renationalisation of key industries– "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited August 2019
    First? Hmm - been a while.

    Both parties now actively electioneering. Both leaders actively avoiding the scrutiny of an interview, and appealing to their populist base. What a shitfest we are in for.

    PS If Malc is around, I got the Woodford Reserve and am enjoying it very much. Very good value, if not as good a proper single malt!
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FPT:
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
  • Unfortunately only saw highlights of the "big speech".

    RE: Herdson's point 5-

    Corbyn stated he wanted a second referendum (for the first time?) with two plausible options, one of which would be remain.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jeremy Corbyn doesn't need to build a consensus. He needs only to gather more people in his tent than Boris Johnson gets in his. He reckons he can do this by preaching to the choir. He might well be right.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,649
    edited August 2019
    Corbyn had to shore up his base if there is an election, because right now he cannot rely on it. The big lesson of Brecon and Radnor is that non-tactical, utterly tribal Labour LEAVE voters are deserting the party for the Liberal Democrats. That's an existential threat if not addressed. So expect lots of red meat for the ex-industrial areas and the tribal loyalists.

    It sounds as though he basically repeated the 2017 manifesto on a sort of 'what the hell - it worked last time' basis. But his sums didn't even begin to make sense then and make less sense now. For example, how is he going to put more money into lifelong learning and technical education as pledged a fortnight ago if the whole education budget is swamped by free university tuition?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,050
    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    So, logically are you saying that as you are ok with people beating up Jones then you should expect something even worse happening to you?

    Is that right?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    kamski said:

    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    So, logically are you saying that as you are ok with people beating up Jones then you should expect something even worse happening to you?

    Is that right?
    *Rummages around for a cricket bat*
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,649
    Anorak said:

    kamski said:

    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    So, logically are you saying that as you are ok with people beating up Jones then you should expect something even worse happening to you?

    Is that right?
    *Rummages around for a cricket bat*
    Your house must be seriously untidy if you have to rummage for something as big as a cricket bat.

    Mine's easy to see. It's on top of all those papers I keep not getting round to filing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,262
    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    OK, but what is a reasonable escalation from the base of tossing a milkshake?

    Surely not a violent (!) mugging.

    Something like letting his bike tyres down would have been more appropriate.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,500
    Mentioned in the previous thread but worth repeating

    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1163395649909514240

    I believe the current No Deal viewpoints conjugate around this question. For those who don't see No Deal being an issue the Operation Yellowhammer issues are self contained so can be fixed.
    Personally, No Deal is likely to be set of disasters that build upon one another - issue a and issue b combine to make issues c and d far far worse than they would otherwise have been.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    OK - since we’ve already gone off topic, am reposting this FPT.

    On my list of British people who have done some of the most harm in the last 20 years will be one (ex) Dr Andrew Wakefield.

    In a sane world he would be shunned and having to pick up litter with his bare hands to earn a living not being feted and fawned over by super-models and credulous and/or worried parents.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,231
    On the optimism thing, I am reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's outstanding (if depressing) Bright-Sided.

    In it, she makes the case that modern parenting's relentless positivity and reinforcement of "you can do anything!" is messing our children up. Giving kids the idea that they can become NASA scientists, when their maths aren't good enough for them to become Accountants, isn't helping them, it's giving them unrealistic expectations and setting them up to be disappointed later.

    With that in mind, here's my brief forecast for the next four years.

    No Deal happens, and catastrophe does not.

    Boris Johnson calls a General Election, which he wins reasonably well thanks to a split opposition, and optimism. (Say a 50-60 seat majority.)

    The world enters recession, a consequence of the natural stage of the economic cycle we are in, and the Trump trade wars. Britain does not sign an FTA with the US, because it turns out that British and American farmers do not share a common vision.

    Our exports splutter (mostly due to the world economy, but excarbated by No Deal Brexit), and - thanks to already overstretched consumers and close to zero interest rates - there is much less room to get people spending than previously. UK house prices fall, thanks to lack of demand from immigrating foreigners and rising unemployment at home.

    The UK enters a nasty three year recession, which is not as deep as 2007/2008, but is longer due to our lack of policy responses. (Mortgage rates can't go negative.)

    Talks with the EU resume, but they demand that we agree to the billions in the Withdrawal Agreement and to something equivalent to the Backstop in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party can't accept this.

    The British people see all the problems with the British economy as due to Brexit (they're not), but most people aren't very good at complex cause and effect. The country gets ever more polarised, between those affected by the ongoing recession, and those for whom sovereignty is more important.

    British voters split three ways: the socialist Labour Party, telling all that the ills of the economy are the result of nasty capitalists and capitalism; the patriotic Conservative Party who tells people that Paradise is just Postponed; and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who promise that everything will just be alright if we rejoin.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,649
    kinabalu said:

    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    OK, but what is a reasonable escalation from the base of tossing a milkshake?

    Surely not a violent (!) mugging.

    Something like letting his bike tyres down would have been more appropriate.
    Why? Does he worry much about deflation?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    ydoethur said:

    Anorak said:

    kamski said:

    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    So, logically are you saying that as you are ok with people beating up Jones then you should expect something even worse happening to you?

    Is that right?
    *Rummages around for a cricket bat*
    Your house must be seriously untidy if you have to rummage for something as big as a cricket bat.

    Mine's easy to see. It's on top of all those papers I keep not getting round to filing.
    It was hidden underneath the nail-studded baseball bats and blood-stained machetes. I need to get more organised.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,443
    kinabalu said:

    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    OK, but what is a reasonable escalation from the base of tossing a milkshake?

    Surely not a violent (!) mugging.

    Something like letting his bike tyres down would have been more appropriate.
    A milkshake for a milkshake and the whole world needs to head to the dry cleaners.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,053
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.

    It is not a logical impossibility as Johnson promised during the referendum campaign that "we will remain a paid up, valued, participating member of the Single Market

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1155808844024602624?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1155808844024602624&ref_url=https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/07/30/this-clip-of-boris-johnson-talking-about-the-single-market-hasnt-aged-well/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,231
    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    I don't support "milkshaking" or any form of violence.

    But two wrongs don't make a right. The people that attacked him - irresepective of the reasons for the attack - need to be caught and punished.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    edited August 2019
    On topic, this promise

    “Can they explain, simply, what "[We'll] give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee" means in practice?”

    has been analysed before. Wasn’t the conclusion that in fact the government would be taking the majority of the stake for itself because the 10% share would not be owned by the employees individually and they would only be getting a proportion of the dividends. In short a proposal dressed up as giving something to employees is in fact a proposal which will take from them and the companies they work for.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, this promise

    “Can they explain, simply, what "[We'll] give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee" means in practice?”

    has been analysed before. Wasn’t the conclusion that in fact the government would be taking the majority of the stake for itself because the 10% share would not be owned by the employees individually and they would only be getting a proportion of the dividends. In short a proposal dressed up as giving something to employees is in fact a proposal which will take steal from them and the companies they work for.

    Not to mention trashing the value of their pensions.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    ydoethur said:

    Corbyn had to shore up his base if there is an election, because right now he cannot rely on it. The big lesson of Brecon and Radnor is that non-tactical, utterly tribal Labour LEAVE voters are deserting the party for the Liberal Democrats. That's an existential threat if not addressed. So expect lots of red meat for the ex-industrial areas and the tribal loyalists.

    It sounds as though he basically repeated the 2017 manifesto on a sort of 'what the hell - it worked last time' basis. But his sums didn't even begin to make sense then and make less sense now. For example, how is he going to put more money into lifelong learning and technical education as pledged a fortnight ago if the whole education budget is swamped by free university tuition?

    Was it only yesterday I saw a Labour party spokesman saying that tory spending plans were threatening to wreck the public finances?

    Irony meter broke there and then.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,757
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, this promise

    “Can they explain, simply, what "[We'll] give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee" means in practice?”

    has been analysed before. Wasn’t the conclusion that in fact the government would be taking the majority of the stake for itself because the 10% share would not be owned by the employees individually and they would only be getting a proportion of the dividends. In short a proposal dressed up as giving something to employees is in fact a proposal which will take steal from them and the companies they work for.

    Shouldn't come as a surprise. How else are they going to be funding their Big Shiny Spending Plans?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,571
    edited August 2019
    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the 'Brexit dividend'.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    nunuone said:

    Owen Jones is crying about being attacked.

    I have little sympathy for him. Ince he decided it was o.k to throw milkshakes at people he didn't like he should of expected worse coming back to him from the other side.

    Too bad, so sad.

    OK, but what is a reasonable escalation from the base of tossing a milkshake?

    Surely not a violent (!) mugging.

    Something like letting his bike tyres down would have been more appropriate.
    Why? Does he worry much about deflation?
    Or does he regard a year at the end of which prices are lower than they were at the beginning as, on the whole, a Goodyear?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,053
    Cyclefree said:

    OK - since we’ve already gone off topic, am reposting this FPT.

    On my list of British people who have done some of the most harm in the last 20 years will be one (ex) Dr Andrew Wakefield.

    In a sane world he would be shunned and having to pick up litter with his bare hands to earn a living not being feted and fawned over by super-models and credulous and/or worried parents.

    Absolutely agree, but the sensationalism of some of the media to the obviously very dodgy study by Wakefield was reprehensible. The combination of the two has meant children have died of measles in the UK.
  • rcs1000 said:

    On the optimism thing, I am reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's outstanding (if depressing) Bright-Sided.

    In it, she makes the case that modern parenting's relentless positivity and reinforcement of "you can do anything!" is messing our children up. Giving kids the idea that they can become NASA scientists, when their maths aren't good enough for them to become Accountants, isn't helping them, it's giving them unrealistic expectations and setting them up to be disappointed later.

    With that in mind, here's my brief forecast for the next four years.

    No Deal happens, and catastrophe does not.

    Boris Johnson calls a General Election, which he wins reasonably well thanks to a split opposition, and optimism. (Say a 50-60 seat majority.)

    The world enters recession, a consequence of the natural stage of the economic cycle we are in, and the Trump trade wars. Britain does not sign an FTA with the US, because it turns out that British and American farmers do not share a common vision.

    Our exports splutter (mostly due to the world economy, but excarbated by No Deal Brexit), and - thanks to already overstretched consumers and close to zero interest rates - there is much less room to get people spending than previously. UK house prices fall, thanks to lack of demand from immigrating foreigners and rising unemployment at home.

    The UK enters a nasty three year recession, which is not as deep as 2007/2008, but is longer due to our lack of policy responses. (Mortgage rates can't go negative.)

    Talks with the EU resume, but they demand that we agree to the billions in the Withdrawal Agreement and to something equivalent to the Backstop in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party can't accept this.

    The British people see all the problems with the British economy as due to Brexit (they're not), but most people aren't very good at complex cause and effect. The country gets ever more polarised, between those affected by the ongoing recession, and those for whom sovereignty is more important.

    British voters split three ways: the socialist Labour Party, telling all that the ills of the economy are the result of nasty capitalists and capitalism; the patriotic Conservative Party who tells people that Paradise is just Postponed; and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who promise that everything will just be alright if we rejoin.

    Mortgage rates can go negative-

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-stunned-as-negative-rates-sweep-across-danish-mortgages
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the Brexit dividend.

    At least have the common decency to put "Brexit dividend" in quote marks.
  • Cyclefree said:

    OK - since we’ve already gone off topic, am reposting this FPT.

    On my list of British people who have done some of the most harm in the last 20 years will be one (ex) Dr Andrew Wakefield.

    In a sane world he would be shunned and having to pick up litter with his bare hands to earn a living not being feted and fawned over by super-models and credulous and/or worried parents.

    Didn't the Daily Mail give him a lot of support and publicity?

    Has it ever apologised?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,231

    rcs1000 said:

    On the optimism thing, I am reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's outstanding (if depressing) Bright-Sided.

    In it, she makes the case that modern parenting's relentless positivity and reinforcement of "you can do anything!" is messing our children up. Giving kids the idea that they can become NASA scientists, when their maths aren't good enough for them to become Accountants, isn't helping them, it's giving them unrealistic expectations and setting them up to be disappointed later.

    With that in mind, here's my brief forecast for the next four years.

    No Deal happens, and catastrophe does not.

    Boris Johnson calls a General Election, which he wins reasonably well thanks to a split opposition, and optimism. (Say a 50-60 seat majority.)

    The world enters recession, a consequence of the natural stage of the economic cycle we are in, and the Trump trade wars. Britain does not sign an FTA with the US, because it turns out that British and American farmers do not share a common vision.

    Our exports splutter (mostly due to the world economy, but excarbated by No Deal Brexit), and - thanks to already overstretched consumers and close to zero interest rates - there is much less room to get people spending than previously. UK house prices fall, thanks to lack of demand from immigrating foreigners and rising unemployment at home.

    The UK enters a nasty three year recession, which is not as deep as 2007/2008, but is longer due to our lack of policy responses. (Mortgage rates can't go negative.)

    Talks with the EU resume, but they demand that we agree to the billions in the Withdrawal Agreement and to something equivalent to the Backstop in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party can't accept this.

    The British people see all the problems with the British economy as due to Brexit (they're not), but most people aren't very good at complex cause and effect. The country gets ever more polarised, between those affected by the ongoing recession, and those for whom sovereignty is more important.

    British voters split three ways: the socialist Labour Party, telling all that the ills of the economy are the result of nasty capitalists and capitalism; the patriotic Conservative Party who tells people that Paradise is just Postponed; and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who promise that everything will just be alright if we rejoin.

    Mortgage rates can go negative-

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-stunned-as-negative-rates-sweep-across-danish-mortgages
    I haven't read the article but my understanding is that's not what the consumer paid. That's what investors paid for Danish mortgage bond
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,902
    edited August 2019
    FPT:
    Charles said:

    MattW said:



    Worth noting that all insulins are not equivalent, as we see in this cautionary tale:

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1158807466383159296?s=19
    I’d also point out that OTC insulin is * a different product *

    He was prescribed insulin analogue - synthetic - and chose to take something else.

    There’s a reason why most insulin is synthetic.
    Yes ... but. There is also a reason by human insulin is still available, apart from cost. Reactions can be unpredictable, which is why porcine insulin is still available too.

    The original piece linked stated that he changed at the suggestion of a Doctor:

    "He began rationing his pricey prescription, before a doctor recommended taking ReliOn, an over-the-counter brand sold for $25 a vial at Walmart."

    Very much agree with the comments on diabetes costs in USA. Syringes seem very expensive. too.

    Dr Fox is right on the costs.

    The insulin cost in the US is a number of times that paid by the Local Doctor here, based on the BNF numbers for the same product. Very rough estimate based on the last time I looked it up would be 5x plus more expensive in USA. Even the cheaper one is getting on for 2-3 times. Syringes are not dissimilar - I could buy them of Amazon at about a fifth of the price quoted (15p vs 1 dollar), should I not use a prescription.

    I am just about to start picking up the tab for daily part time professional care for a parent, and it is a similar type of number.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the optimism thing, I am reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's outstanding (if depressing) Bright-Sided.

    In it, she makes the case that modern parenting's relentless positivity and reinforcement of "you can do anything!" is messing our children up. Giving kids the idea that they can become NASA scientists, when their maths aren't good enough for them to become Accountants, isn't helping them, it's giving them unrealistic expectations and setting them up to be disappointed later.

    With that in mind, here's my brief forecast for the next four years.

    No Deal happens, and catastrophe does not.

    Boris Johnson calls a General Election, which he wins reasonably well thanks to a split opposition, and optimism. (Say a 50-60 seat majority.)

    The world enters recession, a consequence of the natural stage of the economic cycle we are in, and the Trump trade wars. Britain does not sign an FTA with the US, because it turns out that British and American farmers do not share a common vision.

    Our exports splutter (mostly due to the world economy, but excarbated by No Deal Brexit), and - thanks to already overstretched consumers and close to zero interest rates - there is much less room to get people spending than previously. UK house prices fall, thanks to lack of demand from immigrating foreigners and rising unemployment at home.

    The UK enters a nasty three year recession, which is not as deep as 2007/2008, but is longer due to our lack of policy responses. (Mortgage rates can't go negative.)

    Talks with the EU resume, but they demand that we agree to the billions in the Withdrawal Agreement and to something equivalent to the Backstop in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party can't accept this.

    The British people see all the problems with the British economy as due to Brexit (they're not), but most people aren't very good at complex cause and effect. The country gets ever more polarised, between those affected by the ongoing recession, and those for whom sovereignty is more important.

    British voters split three ways: the socialist Labour Party, telling all that the ills of the economy are the result of nasty capitalists and capitalism; the patriotic Conservative Party who tells people that Paradise is just Postponed; and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who promise that everything will just be alright if we rejoin.

    Mortgage rates can go negative-

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-stunned-as-negative-rates-sweep-across-danish-mortgages
    I haven't read the article but my understanding is that's not what the consumer paid. That's what investors paid for Danish mortgage bond
    I think they're negative but there's still bank fees to be paid - There was a bit on World Service last night about it as well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,231
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the optimism thing, I am reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's outstanding (if depressing) Bright-Sided.

    In it, she makes the case that modern parenting's relentless positivity and reinforcement of "you can do anything!" is messing our children up. Giving kids the idea that they can become NASA scientists, when their maths aren't good enough for them to become Accountants, isn't helping them, it's giving them unrealistic expectations and setting them up to be disappointed later.

    With that in mind, here's my brief forecast for the next four years.

    No Deal happens, and catastrophe does not.

    Boris Johnson calls a General Election, which he wins reasonably well thanks to a split opposition, and optimism. (Say a 50-60 seat majority.)

    The world enters recession, a consequence of the natural stage of the economic cycle we are in, and the Trump trade wars. Britain does not sign an FTA with the US, because it turns out that British and American farmers do not share a common vision.

    Our exports splutter (mostly due to the world economy, but excarbated by No Deal Brexit), and - thanks to already overstretched consumers and close to zero interest rates - there is much less room to get people spending than previously. UK house prices fall, thanks to lack of demand from immigrating foreigners and rising unemployment at home.

    The UK enters a nasty three year recession, which is not as deep as 2007/2008, but is longer due to our lack of policy responses. (Mortgage rates can't go negative.)

    Talks with the EU resume, but they demand that we agree to the billions in the Withdrawal Agreement and to something equivalent to the Backstop in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party can't accept this.

    The British people see all the problems with the British economy as due to Brexit (they're not), but most people aren't very good at complex cause and effect. The country gets ever more polarised, between those affected by the ongoing recession, and those for whom sovereignty is more important.

    British voters split three ways: the socialist Labour Party, telling all that the ills of the economy are the result of nasty capitalists and capitalism; the patriotic Conservative Party who tells people that Paradise is just Postponed; and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who promise that everything will just be alright if we rejoin.

    Mortgage rates can go negative-

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-stunned-as-negative-rates-sweep-across-danish-mortgages
    I haven't read the article but my understanding is that's not what the consumer paid. That's what investors paid for Danish mortgage bond
    Indeed. That was the auction price for the bonds.
  • Anorak said:

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the Brexit dividend.

    At least have the common decency to put "Brexit dividend" in quote marks.
    Done.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,129
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, this promise

    “Can they explain, simply, what "[We'll] give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee" means in practice?”

    has been analysed before. Wasn’t the conclusion that in fact the government would be taking the majority of the stake for itself because the 10% share would not be owned by the employees individually and they would only be getting a proportion of the dividends. In short a proposal dressed up as giving something to employees is in fact a proposal which will take from them and the companies they work for.

    File under only possible in the event of a Labour landslide.
    I doubt it's even all that popular, it's not clear what it means really.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,231

    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, this promise

    “Can they explain, simply, what "[We'll] give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee" means in practice?”

    has been analysed before. Wasn’t the conclusion that in fact the government would be taking the majority of the stake for itself because the 10% share would not be owned by the employees individually and they would only be getting a proportion of the dividends. In short a proposal dressed up as giving something to employees is in fact a proposal which will take steal from them and the companies they work for.

    Shouldn't come as a surprise. How else are they going to be funding their Big Shiny Spending Plans?
    Why would they bother funding them?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited August 2019
    Corbyn's position on everything other than Brexit seems much the same as it was in 2017 (and no doubt would have been in 2015, 2010, 2005, 2001 and 1997, if he'd been Labour leader at any of those elections). It's all utter garbage, of course, but since the Conservative Party has joined him in peddling fantasy, that might not be a barrier to him becoming next PM.

    As for his Brexit policy, it remains as convoluted and irrational as ever. Apparently he'll do anything to stop a no-deal Brexit, except whip his MPs to vote in the one way which would unquestionably have avoided one, natch.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,443
    edited August 2019
    rcs1000 said:



    I haven't read the article but my understanding is that's not what the consumer paid. That's what investors paid for Danish mortgage bond

    It's highly unlikely TRUE mortgage rates issued on new mortgages would go negative after fees and so forth due to the rake above base. If rates hit -2% then maybe but that's highly unlikely right now I feel.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,566
    edited August 2019

    Unfortunately only saw highlights of the "big speech".

    RE: Herdson's point 5-

    Corbyn stated he wanted a second referendum (for the first time?) with two plausible options, one of which would be remain.

    Actually, I didn't see the speech at all but I have read it.

    Assuming he said what the Press Office released, he actually said

    And if there is a general election this autumn, Labour will commit to holding a public vote, to give voters the final say with credible options for both sides including the option to remain

    That doesn't imply necessarily only two options. I accept that he might have clarified it in the Q&A, which I've not seen - though I'll predict blind that he didn't.

    What he didn't say was
    - How long he'd take to renegotiate
    - What side Labour would back (if any) in an EURef2
    - What 'credible options' means
    - What happens if Exit Day occurs first

    The link is here;

    https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-speech-corby-today/
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388

    Cyclefree said:

    OK - since we’ve already gone off topic, am reposting this FPT.

    On my list of British people who have done some of the most harm in the last 20 years will be one (ex) Dr Andrew Wakefield.

    In a sane world he would be shunned and having to pick up litter with his bare hands to earn a living not being feted and fawned over by super-models and credulous and/or worried parents.

    Didn't the Daily Mail give him a lot of support and publicity?

    Has it ever apologised?
    Has the Mail ever apologised for anything?
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the optimism thing, I am reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's outstanding (if depressing) Bright-Sided.

    In it, she makes the case that modern parenting's relentless positivity and reinforcement of "you can do anything!" is messing our children up. Giving kids the idea that they can become NASA scientists, when their maths aren't good enough for them to become Accountants, isn't helping them, it's giving them unrealistic expectations and setting them up to be disappointed later.

    With that in mind, here's my brief forecast for the next four years.

    No Deal happens, and catastrophe does not.

    Boris Johnson calls a General Election, which he wins reasonably well thanks to a split opposition, and optimism. (Say a 50-60 seat majority.)



    SNIP

    The UK enters a nasty three year recession, which is not as deep as 2007/2008, but is longer due to our lack of policy responses. (Mortgage rates can't go negative.)

    Talks with the EU resume, but they demand that we agree to the billions in the Withdrawal Agreement and to something equivalent to the Backstop in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party can't accept this.

    The British people see all the problems with the British economy as due to Brexit (they're not), but most people aren't very good at complex cause and effect. The country gets ever more polarised, between those affected by the ongoing recession, and those for whom sovereignty is more important.

    British voters split three ways: the socialist Labour Party, telling all that the ills of the economy are the result of nasty capitalists and capitalism; the patriotic Conservative Party who tells people that Paradise is just Postponed; and the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, who promise that everything will just be alright if we rejoin.

    Mortgage rates can go negative-

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-23/bankers-stunned-as-negative-rates-sweep-across-danish-mortgages
    I haven't read the article but my understanding is that's not what the consumer paid. That's what investors paid for Danish mortgage bond
    Indeed. That was the auction price for the bonds.
    "The record-low mortgage rates, which don’t take into account the fees that homeowners pay their banks, are the latest reflection of the global shift in the monetary environment as central banks delay plans to remove stimulus amid concerns about economic growth."

    I think they're negative - as previously stated they were talking about it on the World Service last night , where they warned that Asset prices could drop being your worry
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388
    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,496
    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.
  • Unfortunately only saw highlights of the "big speech".

    RE: Herdson's point 5-

    Corbyn stated he wanted a second referendum (for the first time?) with two plausible options, one of which would be remain.

    Actually, I didn't see the speech at all but I have read it.

    Assuming he said what the Press Office released, he actually said

    And if there is a general election this autumn, Labour will commit to holding a public vote, to give voters the final say with credible options for both sides including the option to remain

    That doesn't imply necessarily only two options. I accept that he might have clarified it in the Q&A, which I've not seen - though I'll predict blind that he didn't.

    The link is here;

    https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-speech-corby-today/
    He definitely mentioned two options in the speech. Where that leaves their policy is anyone's guess.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,094
    eek said:

    Mentioned in the previous thread but worth repeating

    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1163395649909514240

    I believe the current No Deal viewpoints conjugate around this question. For those who don't see No Deal being an issue the Operation Yellowhammer issues are self contained so can be fixed.
    Personally, No Deal is likely to be set of disasters that build upon one another - issue a and issue b combine to make issues c and d far far worse than they would otherwise have been.

    Just a quick reminder that our government's policy is to leave with a deal and that we would have one already if Labour leavers had abstained. The no deal talk from government is about getting a deal. The more apocalyptic horrors are put into our vision, the more obvious it is that parliament should vote for something very like the deal it has foolishly rejected, once Boris has hurriedly placed a slender fig leaf on it.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,873

    Cyclefree said:

    OK - since we’ve already gone off topic, am reposting this FPT.

    On my list of British people who have done some of the most harm in the last 20 years will be one (ex) Dr Andrew Wakefield.

    In a sane world he would be shunned and having to pick up litter with his bare hands to earn a living not being feted and fawned over by super-models and credulous and/or worried parents.

    Didn't the Daily Mail give him a lot of support and publicity?

    Has it ever apologised?
    Has the Mail ever apologised for anything?
    Not even “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,443

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,577

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    You say that, but what if we get another hung parliament? :D
  • The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,443
    RobD said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    You say that, but what if we get another hung parliament? :D
    True, May called an election and it only made things worse !
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,094

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 983
    No tuition fees is going to be very popular ...... with future students. Students who had and those who still have student loans to pay off will not be very happy unless they get a refund!
  • Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    My vote will depend entirely on how strong Corbyn is in the polls and whether Brexit has happened.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,577

    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    Before or after Boris started dishing out sweeties?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,443

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    There are no good choices from here and as I said I'd prefer the deal. But that's not being espoused by any of the parties right now.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,021
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    You say that, but what if we get another hung parliament? :D
    True, May called an election and it only made things worse !
    Or better if you want a No Deal Brexit...
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    One of the points never discussed is what were the average interest rates world-wide during 1997-2010 compared to 2010-2019.
    The Tories have borrowed more than all Labour governments put together but they got the massive "interest dividend" thank to QE in the last 9 years.
    The interest charge the UK government [ indeed all governments ] pay today is nothing compared to the previous decade even though debt is now over 85% of GDP when it was less than Germany's as a % of GDP in 2010.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,892
    Labour's 2017 manifesto was so heavy on spending commitments that they have nowhere really to go with new policies.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388

    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    Wider than most years of the last Labour government. And the Brexit idiocy will certainly increase it further.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    algarkirk said:

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

    Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.
  • RobD said:

    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    Before or after Boris started dishing out sweeties?
    Today
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,566

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the 'Brexit dividend'.

    The Johnson pledges are irresponsible enough, and not leaving without the disruption of No Deal would help, but it's an entire magic money forest Corbyn needs to pick to fund what he's promising.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,496
    edited August 2019

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the 'Brexit dividend'.

    The Johnson pledges are irresponsible enough, and not leaving without the disruption of No Deal would help, but it's an entire magic money forest Corbyn needs to pick to fund what he's promising.
    It is called MMT - Modern Monetary Theory. If Corbyn wins then UK will be the testing laboratory for this new idea*, which basically involves printing money. US may follow if Dems win.

    * Well, they say 'new' but I have a vague sense I've seen this one before.
  • RobD said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    You say that, but what if we get another hung parliament? :D
    Even another hung parliament might be better than what we currently have:

    1) Politicians may be more willing to compromise knowing another election is 5 years away
    2) Some of the party leaders (including Corbyn) will likely move on allowing for fresh thinking
    3) Some of the older MPs will have been replaced by younger MPs more willing to toe the party line.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,873

    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    Where is the national debt?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,262
    algarkirk said:

    Just a quick reminder that our government's policy is to leave with a deal and that we would have one already if Labour leavers had abstained. The no deal talk from government is about getting a deal. The more apocalyptic horrors are put into our vision, the more obvious it is that parliament should vote for something very like the deal it has foolishly rejected, once Boris has hurriedly placed a slender fig leaf on it.

    I think that IS the plan but I don't see it being possible by 31 Oct. An extension into 2020 will be agreed, I think. I am not persuaded by 'Do or Die!" - but luckily for Boris, most people do appear to be.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,496
    Of course Trump has been testing his own version of MMT - balloon the deficit for tax cuts for the rich.
  • Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
  • algarkirk said:

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

    Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.
    How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,496

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the 'Brexit dividend'.

    The Johnson pledges are irresponsible enough, and not leaving without the disruption of No Deal would help, but it's an entire magic money forest Corbyn needs to pick to fund what he's promising.
    Don't forget the nationalisation wont cost much according to Labour as they do not intend to pay the market rate.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,496
    Artist said:

    Labour's 2017 manifesto was so heavy on spending commitments that they have nowhere really to go with new policies.

    Dunno. As I understand it Murray is writing the manifesto this summer and the plan is it will be far more radical than last time.

    Of course, born-again sensible bank manager John McDonnell may overrule him.
  • The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    Where is the national debt?
    Why is that relevant?
    the 2010 Government inherited a collosal deficit, should it just have stopped paying benefits, for the NHS etc etc

    The Government from 2010 to now has managed to massively reduce the deficit whilst maintaining and then massively increasing employment.
    It has been an amazing success in that regard
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388
    edited August 2019
    Hi

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    Referendums where one of the options available was not honestly or correctly portrayed should be ignored or at least re-run, yes.

    Ideally we wouldn’t have referendums in the first place. They do not work with our Parliamentary system and allow demagogues to pretend that complex problems have simple solutions. Or they become a protest vote on a completely different issue.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,253
    edited August 2019

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    We could have a referendum every day. It would be highly democratic, but very impractical. As a kind of compromise, we could instead say something along these lines: 'You know that referendum we had three years ago and which we haven't implemented yet.......Shall we do a rain check on it? People may have changed their minds and in any case we all know a lot more about the matter than we did then. Since the outcome will affect us for generations to come, it might be as well to put it to the people again to see if Their Will is still reflected in what is proposed, and to reassure ourselves that what we are doing is in fact what They Willed about three years ago, and not some distortion of it.'

    Anything wrong with that?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,443
    Scott_P said:
    Boris and the Heartbreakers. The EU won't back down.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,688

    algarkirk said:

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

    Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.
    How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.
    Maybe we could - if so many people hadn't been telling them at the time how naive they were being.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,140
    Icarus said:

    No tuition fees is going to be very popular ...... with future students. Students who had and those who still have student loans to pay off will not be very happy unless they get a refund!

    Very few future students are eligible to vote. It might persuade some gullible parents.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,566

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the 'Brexit dividend'.

    The Johnson pledges are irresponsible enough, and not leaving without the disruption of No Deal would help, but it's an entire magic money forest Corbyn needs to pick to fund what he's promising.
    It is called MMT - Modern Monetary Theory. If Corbyn wins then UK will be the testing laboratory for this new idea*, which basically involves printing money. US may follow if Dems win.

    * Well, they say 'new' but I have a vague sense I've seen this one before.
    Mayor Pete was quite good on the deficit these last couple of days. If he carries on like that he'll have no chance.

    But I fear you may be right. It's that long since Britain's had proper inflation that the threat of its return may well be wished away as scaremongering or at the least, downplayed far too far.
  • Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    We could have a referendum every day. It would be highly democratic, but very impractical. As a kind of compromise, we and instead say something along these lines: 'You know that referendum we had three years ago and which we haven't implemented yet.......Shall we do a rain check on it? People may have changed their minds and in any case we all know a lot more about the matter than we did then. Since the outcome will affect us for generations to come, it might be as well to put it to the people again to see if Their Will is still reflected in what is proposed, and to reassure ourselves that what we are doing is in fact what They Willed about three years ago, and not some distortion of it.'

    Anything wrong with that?
    It is totally wrong, we had a referendum, Brexit won, democracy must be followed. It is Politicians playing silly games that has got us into this position, but whatever, democracy must be followed.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    Define "Brexit".
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,253
    edited August 2019

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    We could have a referendum every day. It would be highly democratic, but very impractical. As a kind of compromise, we and instead say something along these lines: 'You know that referendum we had three years ago and which we haven't implemented yet.......Shall we do a rain check on it? People may have changed their minds and in any case we all know a lot more about the matter than we did then. Since the outcome will affect us for generations to come, it might be as well to put it to the people again to see if Their Will is still reflected in what is proposed, and to reassure ourselves that what we are doing is in fact what They Willed about three years ago, and not some distortion of it.'

    Anything wrong with that?
    It is totally wrong, we had a referendum, Brexit won, democracy must be followed. It is Politicians playing silly games that has got us into this position, but whatever, democracy must be followed.
    I am sick to death of hearing and reading remarks about democracy and referendums which imply the two are synonymous and interchangeable.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388
    felix said:

    Icarus said:

    No tuition fees is going to be very popular ...... with future students. Students who had and those who still have student loans to pay off will not be very happy unless they get a refund!

    Very few future students are eligible to vote. It might persuade some gullible parents.
    This, of course, is why students have been repeatedly screwed over in the last 20 years. Very cynical politics by both parties.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,009
    Anorak said:

    First? Hmm - been a while.

    Both parties now actively electioneering. Both leaders actively avoiding the scrutiny of an interview, and appealing to their populist base. What a shitfest we are in for.

    PS If Malc is around, I got the Woodford Reserve and am enjoying it very much. Very good value, if not as good a proper single malt!

    Anorak , I am here. Glad you like it, as you say very pleasant and whilst not as
    good as a single malt and a nice change now and again.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,873

    The Tories have lost any ability to criticise Labour for excessive spending. The billions spunked up the wall on Brexit and no-deal preparations are far worse uses of money than any of Labour’s proposals.

    So where is the deficit now say compared to when Labour were last in power?
    Where is the national debt?
    Why is that relevant?
    the 2010 Government inherited a collosal deficit, should it just have stopped paying benefits, for the NHS etc etc

    The Government from 2010 to now has managed to massively reduce the deficit whilst maintaining and then massively increasing employment.
    It has been an amazing success in that regard
    We are still borrowing money in the economic good times and adding to the debt.

    We are borrowing to pay debt interest.

    What happened to 'mend the roof when the sun is shining'?
  • Chris said:

    algarkirk said:

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

    Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.
    How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.
    Maybe we could - if so many people hadn't been telling them at the time how naive they were being.
    You were all too busy ramping the joys of the EU as I recall.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,799

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    Agreed, but only if both sides can be guaranteed to lose.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,688
    And people should be much more concerned about what the leaked documents said about the impact of No Deal on care services, which are already teetering close enough to the brink.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,566

    David Herdson: There were *a lot* of very expensive pledges in his speech:
    - Free university tuition
    - Renationalisation of key industries
    - "Ending austerity" i.e. major increases in day-to-day spending

    How will this all be paid for?


    Answer: It'll be paid from the same magic money tree that Johnson is funding his pledges from.

    Plus there's the 'Brexit dividend'.

    The Johnson pledges are irresponsible enough, and not leaving without the disruption of No Deal would help, but it's an entire magic money forest Corbyn needs to pick to fund what he's promising.
    Don't forget the nationalisation wont cost much according to Labour as they do not intend to pay the market rate.
    That might be the intention. I wonder whether it'd be politically sustainable once campaigns that put real numbers on how much the policy "steals from your pension" start?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,388

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA wouldr have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    We could have a referendum every day. It would be highly democratic, but very impractical. As a kind of compromise, we and instead say something along these lines: 'You know that referendum we had three years ago and which we haven't implemented yet.......Shall we do a rain check on it? People may have changed their minds and in any case we all know a lot more about the matter than we did then. Since the outcome will affect us for generations to come, it might be as well to put it to the people again to see if Their Will is still reflected in what is proposed, and to reassure ourselves that what we are doing is in fact what They Willed about three years ago, and not some distortion of it.'

    Anything wrong with that?
    It is totally wrong, we had a referendum, Brexit won, democracy must be followed. It is Politicians playing silly games that has got us into this position, but whatever, democracy must be followed.
    I agree, the democratic vote that removed the Commons majority for the Brexit-supporting government must be followed. And it is.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Pulpstar said:

    FFS, let's get this GE election over and done with. It is needed.

    If everyone had listened to Richard Nabavi and voted Tory in 2017 we'd be out this mess most likely as the WA would have sailed through.

    I think the correct course of action now is to probably vote Lib Dem despite their unwillingness to compromise over Brexit as its heading towards No Deal, Corbyn or "No Brexit".

    Much as it grates to go against a 17.6 million vote only 3 years ago, given where we are now the Lib Dem vote looks the most sensible to me. I'd have preferred the WA to be passed, but it looks dead right now... as someone once said I wouldn't have started from here.
    Don't they have democrat in their name, yet they are advocating ignoring democracy
    What a strange post. They are advocating re-running a three year old referendum whose outcome is now very different from what the winning side promised, if enough people, er, vote for them.
    So all referendums should now be ignored? People voted for Brexit, it is completely undemocratic to ignore that vote. Its odd that a post stating that we should respect democracy is now deemed as strange!
    We could have a referendum every day. It would be highly democratic, but very impractical. As a kind of compromise, we and instead say something along these lines: 'You know that referendum we had three years ago and which we haven't implemented yet.......Shall we do a rain check on it? People may have changed their minds and in any case we all know a lot more about the matter than we did then. Since the outcome will affect us for generations to come, it might be as well to put it to the people again to see if Their Will is still reflected in what is proposed, and to reassure ourselves that what we are doing is in fact what They Willed about three years ago, and not some distortion of it.'

    Anything wrong with that?
    It is totally wrong, we had a referendum, Brexit won, democracy must be followed. It is Politicians playing silly games that has got us into this position, but whatever, democracy must be followed.
    There was a prospectus for the referendum, that prospectus has now been abandoned by its proponents. There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. It is completely inconsistent with the mandate sought.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,053
    Artist said:

    Labour's 2017 manifesto was so heavy on spending commitments that they have nowhere really to go with new policies.

    Since none of them have been implemented by Theresa May (obviously), most of the 2017 manifesto points are still relevent today, at least in the eyes of Labour and Labour Swing voters.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,566

    algarkirk said:

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

    Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.
    How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.
    I assume that's posted in irony but on the off-chance it's not, Vote Leave consistently criticised the EU for putting ideology and politics ahead of pragmatism, the economy and subsidiarity. Of all the people involved, they have least scope to complain about how the EU has acted.

    Besides, there is a deal.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Artist said:

    Labour's 2017 manifesto was so heavy on spending commitments that they have nowhere really to go with new policies.

    Dunno. As I understand it Murray is writing the manifesto this summer and the plan is it will be far more radical than last time.

    Of course, born-again sensible bank manager John McDonnell may overrule him.
    I think the last Labour manifesto really caught the mood I was looking for just right. It addressed the things that bothered me and the numbers looked okay to me. Above all it was a plan that could lead to the country getting better.

    I think it was a fluke. I think it was drafted with the expectation that Labour was about to not just be defeated but possibly knocked from the position it held in British politics as the only opponent to the Conservatives who could realistically beat them. As such it was pretty much a genuine statement of the party's aims rather than an attempt to put together a winning coalition.

    So I don't think the 2019 manifesto will have the impact of the 2019 one. Unless I'm wrong, and there is some political genius at work in the Labour Party office somewhere. Which isn't impossible.

    So I can see that it might just happen that Labour wins an overall majority.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,688

    Chris said:

    algarkirk said:

    FPT:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    dixiedean said:

    Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight.
    The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?

    What an utter shambles.
    This proposal is a complete breach of the very clear promise made by the official Leave campaign during the referendum. So yet another example of them trying to do something for which they have no mandate.

    Why isn’t the press picking them up on this?
    The Leave campaign said there wouldn’t be an end to freedom of movement? Or that it wouldn’t affect the people already in the UK?
    They stated that we wouldn't be leaving without a deal.
    When people voted in the referendum they knew that after two years we left with or without a deal and that any extra time was not in the UKs gift. You cannot have voted leave without embracing the possibility of no deal. It is a logical impossibility.


    Vote Leave explicitly denied that triggering Article 50 was required, see here:

    http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html

    "We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests."
    Perhaps what Vote Leave said was in the strictest sense true, but as was made clear, would require both parties to want it. Not a safe basis for voting. Art 50 is short, clear and to the point and my argument is sound!

    Your argument is bunk. Vote Leave's entire prospectus was built around them delivering a deal. The fact that their prospectus has been shown to be a shambles does not legitimise them implementing a still more extreme version of their mad obsession.
    How were Vote Leave to know that the EU would act in such bad faith? No Article 50 had been delivered before. I think we can forgive them for their naivety.
    Maybe we could - if so many people hadn't been telling them at the time how naive they were being.
    You were all too busy ramping the joys of the EU as I recall.
    ?

    I don't think I was posting here at all at the time of the referendum.
This discussion has been closed.