Brexit delayed

[Son of Mathonwy]

£150 million a week for the NHS all over again.

Puja

This is why I like the £500 million per week figure the NHS will have to find to pay the higher drug prices under a Trump trade deal (it is fairly justified, albeit it's worst case). Labour need to mention this every single time they open their mouths in the next month.

It would look so good on the side of a bus.

[Which Tyler]

Something like this?


This also happened today:

[Puja]

£150 million a week for the NHS all over again.

Puja

This is why I like the £500 million per week figure the NHS will have to find to pay the higher drug prices under a Trump trade deal (it is fairly justified, albeit it's worst case). Labour need to mention this every single time they open their mouths in the next month.

It would look so good on the side of a bus.

Labour are also throwing out that the Conservatives want to raise the pension age to 75 every chance they get. It's not true in the slightest, but it's pithy and memorable, and a lie which is both of those things goes a lot further than a complicated truth nowadays.

Democracy is utterly, utterly broken and I really don't think it can be fixed.

Puja

[Digby]

fair enough. I think the Tories are proving sufficiently tone deaf to give a fighting chance to Labour.

True, although readers of the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc will be unaware of the Tories' blunders. They only know that Labour's plans will cost a million billion million pounds.

And will require each and every taxpayer to hand over £2,400 extra each year*.

*This figure accomplished by taking everything that anyone even remotely connected with Labour has ever said would be interesting (including Guardian journalists!), assigning a very generous estimate of cost, deciding that abolishing tuition fees would be an immediate increase as opposed to lending students money to pay fees which apparently is magic money that appears from nowhere, assuming the economy and tax revenues will never grow again (because ipso facto, it doesn't when Conservatives aren't in power), rounding everything up, and then adding it all together and dividing by 31.2m taxpayers, because Labour are well known for applying flat tax rates.

When questioned about Conservative spending plans, apparently there's going to be a £30bn surplus across the next 5 years, so they're going to spend that.

£150 million a week for the NHS all over again.

Puja

On t'Today programme earlier there was a Tory making just that point about Labour costing the taxpayer £2,400 per annum, when asked how much Boris' plan would cost given they're hardly skimping on promises he said Labour would cost the taxpayer £2,400

Eventually he (foolishly) answered the question saying (and there's no way they'll be held to this answer I assume) that all day to day election spend pledges being made by the Tories will come from the surplus, and by surplus I assume they mean marginally reduced borrowing requirements, and any investment cost will be met by borrowing but that borrowing will still be reduced as a % of the national economy over the coming years.

What I'd like to know from both Labour and the Tories is you have you assumptions on taxation levels based on some assumptions around the economy and where you'll set taxes, if your assumptions prove wrong do you amend your spending plans or borrow still more? (And worth noting we're about to get downgraded again on the credit front)

[Son of Mathonwy]

Tories must be gleeful at Labour and the LibDems' inability to make even a limited electoral pact. Idiots both, although I suspect the LibDems did actually try to make a deal.

I guess there's still a little time for them to prove me wrong, or for some more candidates to rebel, but I'm not optimistic.

[Digby]

I have to say I really don't like political parties negotiating to take away choice from the voters. I understand why they might want to given the daftness that is a FPTP voting system, but still it sits rather ungainly as an anti-democratic piece of thinking.

[Puja]

I have to say I really don't like political parties negotiating to take away choice from the voters. I understand why they might want to given the daftness that is a FPTP voting system, but still it sits rather ungainly as an anti-democratic piece of thinking.

As above. It's an artifact of our stupid, stupid electoral system (which, may I remind you, we had the opportunity to change in 2011 and didn't, because people are idiots), but it doesn't sit well with me that the Lib Dem's pitch in my constituency is "Not a Tory".

Granted, that's still going to be good enough to get my vote, but it's annoying nonetheless.

I would regard it as a necessary evil in some constituencies (Canterbury springing immediately to mind), but I think a Lib/Lab electoral pact would stand just as high a risk of backfiring as improving their situation. The two parties don't want to be regarded as equivalent in the public eye, which is what them agreeing not to stand against each other would effectively mean.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Have Labour released their manifesto yet? If not then coatings are just speculation. Not that it will stop
People believing those claims mind.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Interesting. I just watched Electioncast. They showed a Facebook ad aimed at young people from each of the parties. The Labour one started with a statement: the Lib Dems cannot win, only the Labour party can stop Boris etc.

This at least partly answers my question about why Labour is having nothing to do with the Lib Dems. They are doing what they always do at election time, one of the things they have to do to win - squeeze the Lib Dem vote. The Lib Dems are on something like 16% in opinion polls. Labour probably see at least half of that number as rightfully theirs. And they want to hoover it up.

Maybe this is their priority, and worth more seats to them than a pact (which would lend the Lib Dems some respect) would give them.

[Digby]

Have Labour released their manifesto yet? If not then coatings are just speculation. Not that it will stop
People believing those claims mind.

I heard they're using a rather fetching weasel

[Sandydragon]

Interesting. I just watched Electioncast. They showed a Facebook ad aimed at young people from each of the parties. The Labour one started with a statement: the Lib Dems cannot win, only the Labour party can stop Boris etc.

This at least partly answers my question about why Labour is having nothing to do with the Lib Dems. They are doing what they always do at election time, one of the things they have to do to win - squeeze the Lib Dem vote. The Lib Dems are on something like 16% in opinion polls. Labour probably see at least half of that number as rightfully theirs. And they want to hoover it up.

Maybe this is their priority, and worth more seats to them than a pact (which would lend the Lib Dems some respect) would give them.

Against which needs to be balanced the widespread opinion of Corbyn.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Interesting. I just watched Electioncast. They showed a Facebook ad aimed at young people from each of the parties. The Labour one started with a statement: the Lib Dems cannot win, only the Labour party can stop Boris etc.

This at least partly answers my question about why Labour is having nothing to do with the Lib Dems. They are doing what they always do at election time, one of the things they have to do to win - squeeze the Lib Dem vote. The Lib Dems are on something like 16% in opinion polls. Labour probably see at least half of that number as rightfully theirs. And they want to hoover it up.

Maybe this is their priority, and worth more seats to them than a pact (which would lend the Lib Dems some respect) would give them.

Against which needs to be balanced the widespread opinion of Corbyn.

Not sure what you mean...can you expand on that?

[Sandydragon]

The liberals could appeals to the voters Corbyn can’t reach.

[Stom]

The liberals could appeals to the voters Corbyn can’t reach.

You mean the Lib Dems.

Or the Not Nots, as we should really call them.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The liberals could appeals to the voters Corbyn can’t reach.

You mean the number of votes Labour can take from the Lib Dems is more limited than Labour thinks?

[Puja]

The liberals could appeals to the voters Corbyn can’t reach.

You mean the number of votes Labour can take from the Lib Dems is more limited than Labour thinks?

And that, if the Lib Dems ally themselves closely with Labour, they could lose those votes due to being tarred with the same brush.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

The liberals could appeals to the voters Corbyn can’t reach.

You mean the number of votes Labour can take from the Lib Dems is more limited than Labour thinks?

And that, if the Lib Dems ally themselves closely with Labour, they could lose those votes due to being tarred with the same brush.

Puja

Ah well. I can only hope that:
a) there's a reasonable amount of rebelling by candidates (ie by dropping out or telling voters to vote for the other party),
b) tactical voting happens on a large enough scale to nullify the idiocy of Labour and the LibDems in those marginals.

[Stom]

I think it really does depend on the student vote. If they manage to vote, it'll make a big difference.

[kk67]

Seems a strange irony watching the charge of the light brigade on film4. Posh boy morons causing murderous havoc, once again.

[Digby]

So the Happy Brexit Brigade have identified why a Brexit Government with a massive majority cannot arrange to ring a bell, remoaners!

However all is not lost as for a countdown to losing money some childhood videos of a young, but still fat, Boris Johnson will be projected onto No 10 Downing St allowing the nation to come together and wonder, is No 10 far enough back that we won't here the chap shouting STOP BREXIT from the gates?

[Sandydragon]

So the Happy Brexit Brigade have identified why a Brexit Government with a massive majority cannot arrange to ring a bell, remoaners!

However all is not lost as for a countdown to losing money some childhood videos of a young, but still fat, Boris Johnson will be projected onto No 10 Downing St allowing the nation to come together and wonder, is No 10 far enough back that we won't here the chap shouting STOP BREXIT from the gates?

The only good thing is that they can no longer blame us for any future disaster. If things turn out well then I’ll cheerfully recant my words, but right now I’m not waiting to fire a barrage of ‘told you sos’ at any Brexiteer if something goes wrong.

For two decades plus they have been constantly moaning so it’s payback time.

[Which Tyler]

The only good thing is that they can no longer blame us for any future disaster. If things turn out well then I’ll cheerfully recant my words, but right now I’m not waiting to fire a barrage of ‘told you sos’ at any Brexiteer if something goes wrong.

For two decades plus they have been constantly moaning so it’s payback time.

Yup, except that it's been 4 decades.

And credit where it's due - IF the government go through with the sort of Agricultural Policy they're talking about (and I'll belive THAT when I see it) - then I will happily give them credit for that.
Equally though, if we sell our soul in a trade deal with the US - they will get a whole lotta "told you so"s and I suspect that I'll be marching in the streets again.

[Which Tyler]

Not looking forward to tomorrow.
Just got asked " When are you planning on ducking off then?"

My day does not feel brightened by the encounter!

[Digby]

So the amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low standard food imports from entering the UK was defeated in the House of Commons by 51 votes this last week. And if there's one thing we can be clear on during this pandemic it's that you wouldn't want a slimmer and healthier populace, bring on the mass produced American food we need to supersize us on the cheap. All in the name of taking back control of course.

[morepork]

So the amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low standard food imports from entering the UK was defeated in the House of Commons by 51 votes this last week. And if there's one thing we can be clear on during this pandemic it's that you wouldn't want a slimmer and healthier populace, bring on the mass produced American food we need to supersize us on the cheap. All in the name of taking back control of course.

You have to fucking wonder, don't you? If the current situation does not prompt MPs to back higher standards for agriculture and food, then what will?