General Election June 8th

[Ban-jani]

National debt has risen 53% since the Tories have been in power. If that's the reason you're voting for them, I'm afraid you've been conned. In fact, in the last 70 years, the Tories have always borrowed more than Labour on average.

Debt rose gradually under the last Labour government, but obviously the financial crash was the main cause, when we bailed out the bank. But what you can see in the graph is that the Tories have literally done the square root of fuck all to stop this upward trend in their time in power, and in fact, since they have been elected by themselves, it's actually gone slightly up again.

No.1 % of GDP borrowing has continually gone down since 2010? That's highlighted in every single graph I've seen. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but a quick google is different to your post. I can't post pictures as I'm on my phone.

No.2 I voted Labour last term anyway and I'm going off this manifesto which says Labour will borrow.

 

[mcfc1632]

No the worst deal would be no deal where we abide by WTO rules.

I've changed my mind on this over the last few months as I've read more and more. Ensuring the City has tariff free access to the EU markets should be priority number 1. No matter what that costs, we have to safeguard this.

People are talking about game theory and nationalist pride about "getting one over on the EU", but this is irrelevant. If we lose the City we're immensely fucked as a major trading nation. Walking away with no deal would be an almost treasonous act that will sink our economy 100 times more than nationalizing some industries

As someone very supportive of Brexit, I can only agree with all you say about the importance of the City.

It is a question of we are where we are.

One approach to protect and further enhance the role of the City would have been for the nation to vote Remain

Given that the nation voted Leave then there is the choice of either a) ignoring/betraying that vote and manufacturing a way of remaining, or b) staying true to the referendum outcome and securing the best outcome that can be achieved from the position we are at.

The undermining of the referendum outcome has been a focus for many at Westminster since last June. Some parties/camps have been more obvious and some others have tried to be more subtle in their methods - e.g. the A50 wrecking amendment. I would be adamant that the Labour position of - we will not leave without a deal is an open door/goal for the EU. So if Labour were to win then we will effectively not leave the EU - we will have (can) secure the City's position - but at the cost of all that Leave voters voted for.

So it actually, IMO, boils down to either taking action that essentially undermines the referendum outcome - essentially setting it aside - or seek to establish a negotiating position of 'some strength' and negotiate a departure that includes securing (sufficiently) the role of the City.

Only the Conservative party's (stated) approach can achieve that and it can only be successful if it is progressed in the near/medium term. There is opportunity/risk based on the current operation of the City and the manner in which it is so integral to so much that the EU is dependent on - let's not allow a few years of paralysis to enable the EU the space to mitigate the exposure they would face by playing hard-ball.

I am a committed Leave supporter, but as I say I recognise the truth of what you say re the importance of the City.

My preference would be that we all as a nation (as much as possible) get over it and get on with it - rear-guard skirmishing is not going to help a successful outcome. That is why I fully supported the decision to go for an election. The Brexit negotiating team (not just the figureheads like May) need to have a position to professionally manage the negotiations without debilitating sniping from those that simply cannot get over it.

If that cannot be achieved I would have rather we had voted Remain.

People talk about us 'shooting ourselves' my deciding Brexit - I can understand that but that was the outcome. There is so much bollocks spoken by the likes of Farron about "...we must respect the referendum vote...." - what dissembling!! What he means is that he wants what he sees as 'that stupid fucking decision' reversed - but he cannot come out and say that.

There is also a degree of compromise for tactical reasons in the Labour stance. All this 'we will not leave without a deal' seems to me to be a stance to prevent leaking votes to the LDs - taken at the time shortly after the announcement of an election and thoughts that Labour could leak votes to the LDs as well as Conservatives. It is not at all thought through and that was clear when Corbyn was challenged to provide some substance. People are still just 'skirmishing' and will continue to do so unless there is a sufficient Conservative majority to override those actions.

The associated problem though is that the Genie (A50 notice) is out of the bottle. A bad deal which will be (IMO) the inevitable result from the Labour stance can only lead to a fully UK compromised deal or a withdrawal of the A50 - both entirely on the EU's terms. So loss of vetoes - loss of rebate - our required commitment to further integration etc.

Yes, we will secure the future of the City within such a deal - but many will see it as a betrayal of what they voted for.

 

[SWP's back]

National debt has risen 53% since the Tories have been in power. If that's the reason you're voting for them, I'm afraid you've been conned. In fact, in the last 70 years, the Tories have always borrowed more than Labour on average.

Debt rose gradually under the last Labour government, but obviously the financial crash was the main cause, when we bailed out the bank. But what you can see in the graph is that the Tories have literally done the square root of fuck all to stop this upward trend in their time in power, and in fact, since they have been elected by themselves, it's actually gone slightly up again.

Possibly the most misguided post and graph in the entire thread which is good work at this stage.

The Tories have reduced the deficit they inherited by around 75%. The debt can't reduce until that deficit has had been eradicated as has been explained numberous times. Imagine how bad that graph would look with Labour still in charge.

 

[BlueRon7]

As someone very supportive of Brexit, I can only agree with all you say about the importance of the City.

It is a question of we are where we are.

One approach to protect and further enhance the role of the City would have been for the nation to vote Remain

Given that the nation voted Leave then there is the choice of either a) ignoring/betraying that vote and manufacturing a way of remaining, or b) staying true to the referendum outcome and securing the best outcome that can be achieved from the position we are at.

The undermining of the referendum outcome has been a focus for many at Westminster since last June. Some parties/camps have been more obvious and some others have tried to be more subtle in their methods - e.g. the A50 wrecking amendment. I would be adamant that the Labour position of - we will not leave without a deal is an open door/goal for the EU. So if Labour were to win then we will effectively not leave the EU - we will have (can) secure the City's position - but at the cost of all that Leave voters voted for.

So it actually, IMO, boils down to either taking action that essentially undermines the referendum outcome - essentially setting it aside - or seek to establish a negotiating position of 'some strength' and negotiate a departure that includes securing (sufficiently) the role of the City.

Only the Conservative party's (stated) approach can achieve that and it can only be successful if it is progressed in the near/medium term. There is opportunity/risk based on the current operation of the City and the manner in which it is so integral to so much that the EU is dependent on - let's not allow a few years of paralysis to enable the EU the space to mitigate the exposure they would face by playing hard-ball.

I am a committed Leave supporter, but as I say I recognise the truth of what you say re the importance of the City.

My preference would be that we all as a nation (as much as possible) get over it and get on with it - rear-guard skirmishing is not going to help a successful outcome. That is why I fully supported the decision to go for an election. The Brexit negotiating team (not just the figureheads like May) need to have a position to professionally manage the negotiations without debilitating sniping from those that simply cannot get over it.

If that cannot be achieved I would have rather we had voted Remain.

People talk about us 'shooting ourselves' my deciding Brexit - I can understand that but that was the outcome. There is so much bollocks spoken by the likes of Farron about "...we must respect the referendum vote...." - what dissembling!! What he means is that he wants what he sees as 'that stupid fucking decision' reversed - but he cannot come out and say that.

There is also a degree of compromise for tactical reasons in the Labour stance. All this 'we will not leave without a deal' seems to me to be a stance to prevent leaking votes to the LDs - taken at the time shortly after the announcement of an election and thoughts that Labour could leak votes to the LDs as well as Conservatives. It is not at all thought through and that was clear when Corbyn was challenged to provide some substance. People are still just 'skirmishing' and will continue to do so unless there is a sufficient Conservative majority to override those actions.

The associated problem though is that the Genie (A50 notice) is out of the bottle. A bad deal which will be (IMO) the inevitable result from the Labour stance can only lead to a fully UK compromised deal or a withdrawal of the A50 - both entirely on the EU's terms. So loss of vetoes - loss of rebate - our required commitment to further integration etc.

Yes, we will secure the future of the City within such a deal - but many will see it as a betrayal of what they voted for.

Please visit places like Boston (in Lincolnshire), Crewe in Cheshire to see the impact mass immigration is having on these communities.. it isn't ALL about the CITY !

to some people in the rest of the country, social cohesion is more important and feeling safe.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Social care? What the propose is far less damaging than it is now for most people.

And the economy is in good shape, as well you know.

You really think security would be better under the leadership of a man that voted against anti-terror bill for the last 30 years?

1) We don't know what's being proposed for social care under the Tories as they say one thing one day then something else the next day. They talked about a cap but couldn't say what that cap was and the small print behind the headline indicated that it was a very selective cap.

2) You keep saying the economy is in good shape and I showed you why growth was not being driven by the right fundamentals (eg productivity, which was stagnant). At that point you went very quiet. Yes there is some growth but it's weak and has slumped in Q1 2017 and is the weakest in the EU. So we can comprehensively nail the lie that the economy is in good shape.

3) There is a choice between security and civil liberties but even countries where the latter are severely restricted have security issues. Even Israel suffers terror attacks despite having possibly the most effective security services in the world the humiliating & draconian measures taken against Palestinians in the West Bank which effectively ghettoises them.

There is simply no way that anyone can guarantee that we won't suffer more attacks like the ones we've seen recently. Corbyn voted against those measures (most of which have been implemented despite that) not because he's pro-terrorist but because he's anti the erosion of our civil liberties. Because once those are gone, they're gone.

 

[Magicpole]

Possibly the most misguided post and graph in the entire thread which is good work at this stage.

The Tories have reduced the deficit they inherited by around 75%. The debt can't reduce until that deficit has had been eradicated as has been explained numberous times. Imagine how bad that graph would look with Labour still in charge.

You're mixing up deficit with debt.

Two different things.

The deficit has reduced due to cuts so the difference in deficit concerns the gap in what we spend and what we earn.

The debt has risen nearly £900m since 2010 and this is not connected to deficit, so, your misunderstanding if the two makes your post misguided.

We can have zero deficit in GNP but be up to our ears in debt. Which we are.

 

[Len Rum]

Hard brexit will be very painful. But ratcheting up corpration tax just as we leave the EU doesn't seem too clever either.

I'm afraid you've entered into the Münchausen syndrome by proxy nature of the Tories.
2017. Tories brought about the economic risk of Brexit - only they can sought out the deal necessary to avoid the risk of an economic meltdown ( which is down to them).
Then
2019. Brexit ( and the intransigent EU) has caused this economic crisis - only the Tories can sought out the meltdown.
Then
2027. After the last 10 years of economic hardship only the Tories can restore this country to it's once great status and destroy the enemy within.
And so on ad infinitum as the country races to the bottom.

 

[BlueAnorak]

With great difficulty. You'd need to have all the supplies built there and guaranteed, and in the case of a failure, the distance offshore would probably be fairly irrelevant.

I also think nuclear is necessary as a power source.

I agree though we really should have got into Thorium power generation 25 years ago, ideally using the passively safe Pebble-bed reactor technology.

 

[mcfc1632]

In the 1980s and early 90s the then government systematically and deliberately moved Britain away from being a country whose economic strength depended principally on manufacturing to one which largely depended on financial services. London now provides the nation with 28% of its national income (the next highest City is Manchester which provides about 3%). A very significant proportion of alondon's income derives from the City of London providing financial services within the EU. There is a debate to be had about whether the move from a manufacturing to a service based economy was borne of economic necessity (given the globalisation that has since taken place - its now cheaper to buy steel in China and ship it over than it is to make it in Middlesbrough and that state of affairs was predicted by many economists in the 80s)) or whether it was politically driven - a systematic attempt to dehorn the heavy-industry unions that brought down the (then) last conservative government. What is undoubtedly true is that we are now predominantly a service based economy not a manufacturing economy.

What is undoubtedly clear is that, like it or lump it, a threat to the economic health of the City is a significant threat to the financial stability of the nation. And the option of withdrawing from the EU and resorting to nothing but WTO rules (which do not cover the provision of services) is in economic terms is a bit like the option of holding a shotgun against the foot before pulling the trigger.

I have watched many - justifiably in my view - criticise Labour's spending promises this election, because although provisionally costed in the manifesto, Labour's costings take no account (for instance) of the tax avoidance measures that every company will take if Labour wins today and imposes higher Corporation Tax rates. However the justified criticism of Labour's magic money tree uttered by eg Theresa May seems ironic to say the least given her threat to take an axe to the actual money tree that is the City of London, which is exactly what would happen if we pull out of the EU and revert to nothing but WTO rules.

I suppose irony is only one word for it. There are others.

Having just replied to Damocles post - I can fully understand your concerns/angst - and I fully accept their validity.

You, Damocles and I recognise the crucial role of the City. There is actually not much that different I would suggest in the nature of our concerns - just the next steps.

You (I would genuinely respectfully suggest) would prefer that we had voted Leave and would still hope for that to be (essentially) reversed

Damocles (again only a suggestion) might be of a similar view to you or at the very least place the role of the City at a level of importance way above any and all other considerations - even if that leads to acceptance of a lot of main driving forces that led to a referendum outcome of Leave being compromised.

Mine would be to use the negotiating strengths we have (including their dependency on our money - committing future funding and their dependency on the role of the City) now/early to achieve a mutually beneficial negotiated outcome. Both sides will have to make substantial compromises and both sides will need to 'present' things as a 'win' - but this can (IMO) be achieved if we act quickly and resolutely.

This is why in the Brexit thread I have spoke about offering significant funding for 7 years - but I am now straying into the Brexit thread scope so will leave it there.

 

[Ban-jani]

Possibly the most misguided post and graph in the entire thread which is good work at this stage.

The Tories have reduced the deficit they inherited by around 75%. The debt can't reduce until that deficit has had been eradicated as has been explained numberous times. Imagine how bad that graph would look with Labour still in charge.

Cheers mate I thought so when he posted it. It's a public sector graph that isn't it and doesn't highlight overall GDP debt?