Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another man in his late ’70s puts his hat into the ring for WH

2

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231

    viewcode said:

    In line with my policy of betting transparency, please be advised that I have today placed a bet of £150 with Betfred at 2/5 on Conservative overall majority. I intended to wait until the YouGov MRP but the price was falling so quickly I thought it best to take the risk. #BigBoyPants

    For @Big_G_NorthWales and others who do not bet or might like the process explained, it goes like this:

    I went into the bookies and gave him £150. In turn he gave me a white slip with "Next Election: Conservatives Overall Majority 2/5" on it. Betfred is a fixed odds bookie (sometimes known as a "sportsbook" bookie). So the "2/5" means for every 5 I give him, he will give me 2 back if successful. So if Con does get an OM I will get £60 back (60=150*2/5) plus my original stake of £150. If Cons does not get an OM I will get nothing.

    Well done you for putting your own money at risk. I don't bet because I know I'm the type of person who could get addicted. My brother in law made a tidy sum on Brexit referendum night based on what was being said on here though.
    I am not the only on here who bets, and some bet considerably more. The biggest gambler that I am aware of was @Dromedary , who claimed (and was backed up by others) to have won six figures on Referendum night. Others who bet include @Casino_Royale , @isam, possibly also @TheScreamingEagles and @MaxPB.

    As for addiction: I find betting genuinely scary (to the point of only going into shops late at night as there are fewer people there) so I'm kinda self-inoculated against it. Most of my bets have been for insurance purposes (eg Trump win), some have been because I thought it would happen (eg London Mayor), some a combination of both (eg EU Ref)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231

    RobD said:

    nova said:

    Floater said:

    nova said:

    BluerBlue said:

    The "we're the fifth biggest economy so we can afford it" argument from the left is utterly ridiculous. We're one of the biggest economies in the world because of our liberalised, free-market economy, not because of socialism. If we adopted Labour's crazy far-left platform, we'd be on a rapid descent towards poverty as business, investment, and the "evil rich" fled the country as fast as they could...

    Boring.

    Britain is great - we should be able to afford the best pensions and a great health service.

    If you want to stand up after a decade of austerity and say we still can't afford anything, please do, but the public seem to like a "yes we can" attitude :)
    But you have to be realistic

    The public is literately laughing at your policies

    Don't believe me, that's coming from your own focus groups.

    I personally don't have any policies. While I appreciate that something like free broadband may not have gone down well - genuine extra money for pensions and the NHS are going to be popular.

    The Tories could have been generous and still undercut Labour massively, but
    their caution may just give Labour a simple positive argument (and let's face it, they need something big to go their way).

    These momentum trolls stay up late now don’t they.
    PB Tories stay up later ;)
    Made of stronger stuff. 😉
    Get up earlier too.....

    Didn't he used to post here:

    https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/1198748966898278400?s=20
    He'll be back once he's won his £1k bet on the date of Brexit.
    For @SeanT to win his bet against @williamglenn , we have to leave the EU on or before Dec 31 2019. Will we do so? Genuine question.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    PaulM said:

    On Bloomberg,

    rcs1000 said:

    Allow me to weigh in on the Bloomberg bid...

    So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.

    But.

    I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.

    In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...

    Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.

    If he thought Biden or another broadly pro Wall St Democrat would win the primary he wouldn't be getting involved. I think from a betting perspective perhaps the more relevant consideration is that even if he doesn't win, if he burns hundreds of millions of dollars in the primary, I suspect a large chunk of it will go on assailing some of the other candidates, most likely Warren. And he can start the blitz day one, without having to fundraise.
    Bloomberg's first TV ad hit tonight. It is a very positive message about his ability to fix things. His only target it Trump, not fellow applicants for the job
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    What i've concluded from this is that the NHS has already been lost. Time to move on.
  • IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:


    I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.

    Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.

    Thank god.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Wikipedia says the Tory candidate in Leeds North East and the Brexit candidate in Glenrothes have also been officially suspended, although of course they can't be removed from the ballot paper.

    What have they sone?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    In line with my policy of betting transparency, please be advised that I have today placed a bet of £150 with Betfred at 2/5 on Conservative overall majority. I intended to wait until the YouGov MRP but the price was falling so quickly I thought it best to take the risk. #BigBoyPants

    For @Big_G_NorthWales and others who do not bet or might like the process explained, it goes like this:

    I went into the bookies and gave him £150. In turn he gave me a white slip with "Next Election: Conservatives Overall Majority 2/5" on it. Betfred is a fixed odds bookie (sometimes known as a "sportsbook" bookie). So the "2/5" means for every 5 I give him, he will give me 2 back if successful. So if Con does get an OM I will get £60 back (60=150*2/5) plus my original stake of £150. If Cons does not get an OM I will get nothing.

    Well done you for putting your own money at risk. I don't bet because I know I'm the type of person who could get addicted. My brother in law made a tidy sum on Brexit referendum night based on what was being said on here though.
    I am not the only on here who bets, and some bet considerably more. The biggest gambler that I am aware of was @Dromedary , who claimed (and was backed up by others) to have won six figures on Referendum night. Others who bet include @Casino_Royale , @isam, possibly also @TheScreamingEagles and @MaxPB.

    As for addiction: I find betting genuinely scary (to the point of only going into shops late at night as there are fewer people there) so I'm kinda self-inoculated against it. Most of my bets have been for insurance purposes (eg Trump win), some have been because I thought it would happen (eg London Mayor), some a combination of both (eg EU Ref)
    If I remember correctly someone who's now banned from this site claimed to have won about £50,000 on the Brexit referendum.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Wikipedia says the Tory candidate in Leeds North East and the Brexit candidate in Glenrothes have also been officially suspended, although of course they can't be removed from the ballot paper.

    What have they sone?
    Tory anti-semitism:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-candidate-suspended-amjad-bashir-antisemitism-leeds-election-a9210591.html

    Brexit "rampant" homophobia:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-party-withdraws-support-from-glenrothes-candidate-over-rampant-homophobia-1-5048256

  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    TimT said:

    PaulM said:

    On Bloomberg,

    rcs1000 said:

    Allow me to weigh in on the Bloomberg bid...

    So, I like Michael Bloomberg a lot. I think he was an excellent Mayor of NYC. He is a brilliant self made man, who still runs his financial media empire. He would probably be an excellent President.

    But.

    I think he's going to find it hard to get traction. Firstly, he's simply not that popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Secondly, skipping the early states is not that great a strategy.

    In ten weeks time, there will be an Iowa winner. A week later, there will be a New Hampshire one. (And possibly they'll be the same person.) If the winner (or winners) of those Primaries are on the moderate side of the Democratic party (whether Buttigieg or Biden), then what's Mr Bloomberg's pitch? Pick me over the other moderate, 'cause...

    Now it's quite possible that Sanders wins both Primaries, and Biden and Buttigieg are flailing (as are all the other moderates, like Harris, Klobuchar, Patrick and Booker)... in which case I guess we could see Bloomberg make a splash. But that's a pretty narrow window of opportunity. 6% chance? I'd say more like a 1% chance.

    If he thought Biden or another broadly pro Wall St Democrat would win the primary he wouldn't be getting involved. I think from a betting perspective perhaps the more relevant consideration is that even if he doesn't win, if he burns hundreds of millions of dollars in the primary, I suspect a large chunk of it will go on assailing some of the other candidates, most likely Warren. And he can start the blitz day one, without having to fundraise.
    Bloomberg's first TV ad hit tonight. It is a very positive message about his ability to fix things. His only target it Trump, not fellow applicants for the job
    I doubt Bloomberg thinks he's got much chance of the nomination, he just doesn't want to see President Warren. It's obvious what's going on here - billionaires feeling slightly threatened that they might have to pay a fair share of tax for a change.

    As for Biden - the influence-peddling with his son getting massive paychecks for being on the board of a Ukrainian company might not be illegal, but it's obviously corrupt. Dems should drop him, and differentiate themselves clearly from the nepotism of Trump.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068
    SunnyJim said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:


    I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.

    Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.

    Thank god.
    It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.

    The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.

    This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    matt said:

    Byronic said:

    I’ve recently spent some time with a large smattering of Americans, left and right.

    They all agreed that the age of the candidates is a real issue. They all despaired of it, and wanted change. Reps and Dems.

    If this is a widespread feeling someone like Buttigieg has an in-built advantage.

    What happened to the generation born in the fifties and sixties, who should now be in their fifties and sixties?
    All the oxygen is being sucked out of the room by the triumph of the gerontocracy. That age doesn’t mean anything other than living doesn’t stop them believing that they’re something special. They should just fuck off and die.
    Yes, that was pretty much the attitude of the Americans I met. Fuck odd and die, coffin-dodgers. And some of these people were in their 70s

    Hillary got a lot of stick just for this.
    Mr Byronic - at the last election there was a user called SeanT who went hysterical at the Tory manifesto. I remember reading his comments avidly before I joined this site. Sadly he no longer contributes.

    How do you feel about the manifesto?
    I worry it lacks one or two retail offers. But I don’t instantly feel it’s calamitous.
    So this is an admission that Byronic=SeanT
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Young people:

    We're getting screwed over by greedy old Tory farts who "Stole Our Future"™ by dragging us out of Our Beloved EU and casting us into the outer darkness, but expect us still to pay for their ring-fenced, gold-plated, Triple-Locked pensions!

    Labour:

    These older women have suffered an awful injustice because they had to work a couple of years longer than they wanted before getting their ring-fenced, gold-plated, Triple-Locked pensions. We must give them £58 billion now!

    Young people:

    Let's have a voter registration drive to make sure as many of us can vote Labour as possible. Ohhhhh Jeremy Corbyn! Ohhhhh Jeremy Corbyn!
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Foxy said:


    It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.

    The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.

    This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.

    I wouldn't argue with that.

    It's another potential banana skin that the Tories have avoided which just leaves the final debate for Corbyn to have a game-changing moment.

    Assuming there are no black swans and also assuming the DK's don't fall in behind Labour on the day.

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Verdict on public spending: Conservatives promise an extra £3bn a year, Labour £83bn a year.

    This does not, however, include the £650bn over the next Parliament that John McDonnell has, apparently, concluded is hidden down the back of a sofa somewhere in the Treasury to fund Labour's proposals for new state investment bodies. Almost nobody seems to have noticed this at all.

    It's not just the political class in this country that is useless. The media is also remarkably negligent.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
  • IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Fishing said:



    Evidently Corbyn's followers don't grasp the difference between overall and per-capita wealth. China is the world's second largest economy, but nobody would say they can afford better health care than we can. We are about the 15th-20th richest economy per head in the world, so we can afford public services that are fairly average for industrialised countries.

    Maybe Labour supporters have noticed that the UK has been spending less than other similar countries on healthcare - and so despite the efficiency of funding through taxation - we need to increase to compensate.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?locations=GB-FR-DE&name_desc=true
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    nova said:

    Floater said:

    nova said:

    Floater said:

    nova said:

    BluerBlue said:

    The "we're the fifth biggest economy so we can afford it" argument from the left is utterly ridiculous. We're one of the biggest economies in the world because of our liberalised, free-market economy, not because of socialism. If we adopted Labour's crazy far-left platform, we'd be on a rapid descent towards poverty as business, investment, and the "evil rich" fled the country as fast as they could...

    Boring.

    Britain is great - we should be able to afford the best pensions and a great health service.

    If you want to stand up after a decade of austerity and say we still can't afford anything, please do, but the public seem to like a "yes we can" attitude :)
    But you have to be realistic

    The public is literately laughing at your policies

    Don't believe me, that's coming from your own focus groups.

    I personally don't have any policies. While I appreciate that something like free broadband may not have gone down well - genuine extra money for pensions and the NHS are going to be popular.

    The Tories could have been generous and still undercut Labour massively, but
    their caution may just give Labour a simple positive argument (and let's face it, they need something big to go their way).

    These momentum trolls stay up late now don’t they.
    About as subtle as a brick and also about as persuasive.
    Although mummy and daddy sent them to private school and bought them a little apartment in the city near their little job, they still have the wit, charm and intelligence of a retarded woodlouse.
    Ah. I did give you the benefit of the doubt with the momentum comment - but this is bizarrely rude.

    I had assumed the idea of this website was to discuss what issues might cause movement in the betting markets. I was suggesting that the Tories may have left the door open for Labour to claw back a little (and I mean "a little"), when a touch more generosity (which they've been trailing in terms of rhetoric for months), could have slammed that door shut.
    If you’re invited to a night out with an alcoholic you don’t keep up with him and impress him by having 3 or 4 pints. You stick to soft drinks, have a good time and hope he learns the error of his ways.
    And you don't accept the offer of a lift home in his car, thank you very much.

    A good friend would take his car keys off him - and send him off into the night in a taxi.

    Just a thought, Labour voters.
  • SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Of course, both sides extensively test variations of their visceral messaging in focus groups to optimise their cut-through.

    Although, I’m not sure what the Lib Dems do.
  • Signs of hubris from some Tory supporters on Twitter this morning.

    I don’t like it.
  • IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    The question in 2 weeks time is how many people have thought to themselves “McDonnell is doing something for me, I’ll vote Labour” and how many think Labours spending pledges are overbaked and reckless.

    At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.

    I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
  • Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    And Corbyn wouldn’t be doing this considering he’ll be spending 6 months renegotiating the deal and holding another referendum?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,771
    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    ... but has an explicit democratic mandate. Or actually three of them and could be about to get a fourth.
  • IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    The question in 2 weeks time is how many people have thought to themselves “McDonnell is doing something for me, I’ll vote Labour” and how many think Labours spending pledges are overbaked and reckless.

    At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.

    I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.

    I’m not sure Corbyn wouldn’t be advocating an identical platform even if Brexit had never occurred. Remember: he was elected as leader well before it in 2015.

    This is his dream.
  • Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    And Corbyn wouldn’t be doing this considering he’ll be spending 6 months renegotiating the deal and holding another referendum?
    It would be quite funny if a motley Labour minority Government led by Corbyn were to renegotiate the WA, hold a referendum on it and then “lose” it.

    They’d then be obliged to ‘Get Brexit Done’, which might have a popcorn factor off the charts.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    DavidL said:

    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

    That third paragraph is right. There's going to be a lot of sound and fury about what 'getting Brexit done' actually means. It's going to be realised soon, probably some time in the summer, that not having representatives in the various Councils and Committees is that we'll be in a 'take it or leave' situation over something some at least sections of the Press and public are really exercised about. Could well be fishing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881



    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.

    The Tories have long wanted to privatise the NHS. Ken Clarke managed to persuade Thatcher not to do it - by introducing the internal market. (https://www.hsj.co.uk/home/internal-market-was-only-way-to-stop-thatcher-privatising-nhs/26572.article)

    More recently, Raab, Truss, Patel, Skidmore, Kwarteng wrote 'After the Coalition' which sets out their plan to significantly increase private provision of health services. They advocate for a health service where two thirds of hospitals are privately run or not for profit.
  • IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    The question in 2 weeks time is how many people have thought to themselves “McDonnell is doing something for me, I’ll vote Labour” and how many think Labours spending pledges are overbaked and reckless.

    At any other time, if Brexit wasn’t an issue, I’d say Labour might actually put in a respectable result (unfairly, because the spending plans are ridiculous, but people like freebies). But I do think Brexit will override a lot this time around.

    I think labour have done enough to avoid a heavy defeat, though. I think we’re still in slim Tory majority territory.

    It is 2015 all over again. The worry is not that voters believe Labour is reckless but rather, as in 2015, voters think Labour has correctly identified all the problems but that its programme is so ambitious as to be undeliverable.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2019
    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    camel said:

    Andy_JS said:

    How many have we had now?

    The ones I know of, in addition to this one, are the Tory candidate in Aberdeen North and the LD candidate in Birmingham Hodge Hill.
    “Some of my old tweets contain language I’m not proud of, but mostly they’re just the product of someone who talks a lot of shit"

    How to sell yourself to the public as their representative in parliament.
    Sounds like he'd fit right in. Future party leader, perhaps.

    Your comment on the test has not aged well.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.

    Weird.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    DavidL said:

    There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    We know the conclusions of the Oakervee review. It will recommend HS2 go ahead as planned with one difference - phase 1 should go to Crewe as well as Birmingham.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881


    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.

    Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Still two and a half weeks to go. Plenty of time for a skilled bungler to cock things up.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
    There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Alistair said:

    The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.

    Weird.

    Street protests in this instance are symptoms, not causes. They seem to represent a huge groundswell of frustration in Hong Kong at Beijing's meddling coupled with the official government's corruption, incompetence and lethargy.

    Therefore, people already disillusioned with the government are likely to be further unimpressed by its response to the breakdown of law and order.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    Alistair said:

    The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.

    Weird. </blockquote
    They are if you have an alternative democratic process as a way to make improvements. But against inflexible dictatorships it is the only way.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited November 2019
    rkrkrk said:


    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.

    Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
    On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.

    Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Foxy said:

    SunnyJim said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:


    I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.

    Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.

    Thank god.
    It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.

    The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.

    This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
    Blue Labour towns have been deceived into believing that Brexit will solve all their problems.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    edited November 2019

    rkrkrk said:


    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.

    Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
    On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.

    Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
    Labour increased it per capita by something like 60%. So you need to find around 35m immigrants to be right.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Stop dog whistling about immigration jesus christ. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
  • Alistair said:

    The most amazing think about HK is that I have been assured that noisy public street protests with public disorder are the sure fire way to turn people against you.

    Weird.

    It got out the vote. The previous regime held all the power on a 25% turnout, they probably would not have done on 75% ever. Same issue in English local government. The turnout is a strong determinant of the result.
  • rkrkrk said:


    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.

    Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
    On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.

    Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
    That would be George Osborne, not Labour. The Cameron/Osborne government chose austerity rather than growth, and so choked off the recovery they inherited from Labour. Even IDS resigned over Osborne's cuts!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Foxy said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
    Didn't a lot of the European migrants actually work in and around the NHS. Seem to frequently.. once upon a time anyway ..... encounter European doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses etc.
    When I worked in GP services we used to reckon that while a young (under 40 or so) man would have a couple of prescriptions a month, a young woman perhaps 4 an over 65 of either sex would have ten. (Mrs C and I are on about 4 each doing quite well!)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
    There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
    Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.
  • Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
    There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
    By that argument 1997 was not a mandate for some of the things the Labour government did. There is no-one more appalled by low turnouts in local government elections but I am sorry - If you don't vote your vote does not count. And the same will be true with the rigged referendum Labour have cooked up. Hate it as much as we might every leaver will owe it to turn out and vote. Always vote, and if you don't then STFU.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
    There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
    By that argument 1997 was not a mandate for some of the things the Labour government did. There is no-one more appalled by low turnouts in local government elections but I am sorry - If you don't vote your vote does not count. And the same will be true with the rigged referendum Labour have cooked up. Hate it as much as we might every leaver will owe it to turn out and vote. Always vote, and if you don't then STFU.
    I don’t disagree. I’ve always been against FPTP.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:


    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.

    Labour significantly increased funding for the NHS per capita over their period in government.
    On their old numbers. Forgettting 3m had arrived.

    Oh, and they also caused us to have to suffer 10+ years of austerity in the process.
    Labour increased it per capita by something like 60%. So you need to find around 35m immigrants to be right.
    Labour increase it by 7% a year in real terms from 2000 to 2008.

    https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/money-spent-nhs

    So I think your 60% per capita figure needs some modification.

    Overall spending trebled in cash terms, but that doesn’t take galumphing inflation within the sector into account.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited November 2019
    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Stop dog whistling about immigration jesus christ. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
    And the Tories have not yet revealed their plans for migrant numbers. Currently under this Tory government these are running at circa 300 000 net per year, only 1/3 EU. Apparently we are not planning to stop EU migration entirely, but a 50% cut in EU migration still works out roughly a quarter million immigrants per year.

    Indeed with returning "expats" from the Costas, and reduced migration there post Brexit, the NET migration figures may well worsen, even with reduced inward migration.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited November 2019
    Foxy said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.

    Yep - there are three times more UK citizens of pensionable age living in the EU27 than there are EU27 citizens of pensionable age living in the UK.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
  • Didn't a lot of the European migrants actually work in and around the NHS. Seem to frequently.. once upon a time anyway ..... encounter European doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses etc.
    When I worked in GP services we used to reckon that while a young (under 40 or so) man would have a couple of prescriptions a month, a young woman perhaps 4 an over 65 of either sex would have ten. (Mrs C and I are on about 4 each doing quite well!)

    5.9% of working adults work in healthcare.
    3 million migrants on top of the 60 million population is a 5% increase in population [not all will work of course].

    If you add 5% of the population via immigration of course some of that 5% will work in healthcare. Doesn't mean that they automatically all or even disproportionately do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    edited November 2019

    Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.

    Huh? They work in the tourism industry and agriculture. Indeed, there were over 30,000 in 2017 but that’s dropped a bit since:

    https://www.devonlive.com/news/reality-devons-27000-europeans-living-2274996

    Edited for wrong link.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    DavidL said:

    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

    An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
  • TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
    There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
    Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
    Indeed the Remainers in Parliament made a tremendous strategic mistake rejecting May's flaccidly soft Brexit.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?

    Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.

    Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.

    Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?

  • In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    Ditto
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Cyclefree said:

    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?

    Did you page HYUFD when you wrote it?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:

    "If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

    "In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in."

    "One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to 'fix the crisis in social care once and for all'. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/conservative-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

    Yep, Corbyn Labour has given the Tories complete freedom to operate. There is no need to make any promises because no-one takes the Labour ones seriously. It does, though, also indicate a complete absence of ideas. Like Labour, the Tories continue to fail to engage with the 21st century. It is not sustainable.

    This is nothing to do with Corbyn.

    The Tories are devoting the attention and resources of British state towards Brexit, the grand Daddy of ideological crusades that actively makes us worse off, reduces our influence and does nothing to solve the problems we face today.
    Which, irritatingly to you and me as it was, the British public nevertheless voted for.
    There was never a mandate for Brexit at all costs.
    Yes there was. Any Brexit would fulfill the requirement.
    I disagree, but let’s not argue there’s no point.
  • In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
    The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
  • Flashy5Flashy5 Posts: 42
    edited November 2019

    In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
    How many more people did the NHS treat last year compared to 2010 ? Or 1950 ?

    As for other metrics - the range and scope of treatments and drugs available increase year on year - making free provision unsustainable forever.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    Foxy said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
    I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
    The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
    The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?

    Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
    If she's looking to remedy 'any injustice' then what about the generations of men who had to work five extra years because they were born male? That was more of an injustice than WASPI boomers losing a little bit of the privilege they had.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068

    Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.

    I think he comes from a Northern mining family, which explains the harshness of his views. Those that make it from that sort of background are often very unforgiving, they put down to talent and hard work the entirety of their success, and forget or minimise the element of luck and chance.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.

    Yeah, because I haven't knocked on any doors of nice Polish and Hungarian people who have settled down here, but cannot vote in this election.

    Your view of EU immigration is what, I should look to some recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto in Boston?

    I grew up in the West Midlands. I am the product of Polish, Russian, French, and Ukrainian immigration. I know about immigration.

    Your dog whistling is just that; a disgrace.
  • Foxy said:

    SunnyJim said:

    IFS take on the Conservative Manifesto:


    I sensed on twitter yesterday a real frustration on the left that there was so little to criticize in the manifesto.

    Other than it being pretty boring...which it is.

    Thank god.
    It is a blank manifesto, one where a pothole fund is one of the highlights. Apart from Brexit, there is nothing for Blue Labour towns.

    The idea of a blank manifesto is that there is nothing to go back on afterwards. It is a pig in a poke manifesto, where the unpopular stuff comes afterwards.

    This is an angry election, and not just on twitter. It depends in the end what people are most angry about, Brexit or austerity. That may well vary by region.
    Blue Labour towns have been deceived into believing that Brexit will solve all their problems.
    Both Arron Banks and Dominic Cummings from the two main Leave proponent groups have acknowledged this. There is also a striking correlation between the impact of austerity on an area and its voting Leave.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
    The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
    The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5051149/Mervyn-Kings-comments-trigger-first-gilt-auction-failure-since-1995.html
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670



    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's

    The Tories were in power for half the seventies.

  • IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

    An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
    Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.

    We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.

    This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Byronic said:

    I’ve recently spent some time with a large smattering of Americans, left and right.

    They all agreed that the age of the candidates is a real issue. They all despaired of it, and wanted change. Reps and Dems.

    If this is a widespread feeling someone like Buttigieg has an in-built advantage.

    What happened to the generation born in the fifties and sixties, who should now be in their fifties and sixties?
    Clinton knifed then all
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited November 2019

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

    An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
    Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.

    We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.

    This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
    Literally irrelevant. None of that will solve the problems in your fetishized ‘northern towns’.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Cyclefree said:

    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?

    I suspect their plan is to say nothing about anything unless directly pressed. They are a bit over cautious.
  • Labour wheeling out Ken Loach today to talk about the arts - now that is a core vote dog whistle.
  • In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
    The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
    The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
    Yes we were. For every £4 being spent £1 was being borrowed.

    We had to turn on the printing presses and have a decade of relative austerity in order to partially get ourselves out of Brown's mess. Countries that got into a deeper mire had to have real austerity where spending really was cut rather than increasing slower like here - and in those countries healthcare spending was cut rather than increasing spending slower like here.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Cyclefree said:

    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?

    Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
    First step would be to find some injustice.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Alistair said:



    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's

    The Tories were in power for half the seventies.

    Neither Party covered themselves in glory in the Seventies. Neither Barber nor Healey.

    But we still kept the NHS going, onwards and upwards in it spending.
  • In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    Labour did not break the economy. Even the Thatcher government blamed the 1970s malaise on the Barber boom and oil price shock rather than Labour. As for the 2000s, the global financial crisis was global, and was not caused by Labour.
  • IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

    An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
    Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.

    We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.

    This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
    Literally irrelevant. None of that will solve the problems in your fetishized ‘northern towns’.
    Did you see what I replied to? It was completely relevant to what I replied to, I didn't reply to a comment about 'northern towns'.

    I live in a Northern town myself so I don't need you to tell me about the North thank you.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    People underestimate what people think Brexit will solve.

    They think there will be plentiful council housing, they think all the NHS problems will be fixed, they think school class sizes will reduce, they think there will be plentiful good jobs, they think crime will significantly reduce.

    They have been deceived. Simple as that.

    When reality catches up the retribution will be crushing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Foxy said:

    Obviously @MarqueeMark lives in Devon, an area that has experienced very little EU or non EU immigration but pretends to know everything about its effects on northern towns.

    I think he comes from a Northern mining family, which explains the harshness of his views. Those that make it from that sort of background are often very unforgiving, they put down to talent and hard work the entirety of their success, and forget or minimise the element of luck and chance.
    A Midlands mining family, please.

    And what in your background makes you so unbearably smug?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited November 2019

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Personally I am almost relieved that the Tory manifesto is so boring. For a time it looked as if Boris was going to try competing with the Labour spending splurge. It was a competition that he could never win and simply risked his own credibility.

    What we have now are specific spending promises on health, on education and on the police with considerable caution on everything else. There are aspirations to spend more on infrastructure too but this clearly depends on the outcome of the HS2 review (although Boris has made it clear what his views are) and whether the Courts can once again stop Heathrow expansion.

    It is a pity that there is not a clearer vision of what sort of UK the Tories want to see once Brexit is done and dusted but in reality Brexit will continue to dominate for some time yet. So we will go into the transition of Boris's deal but a lot of energy will be absorbed in negotiating a FTA and regulatory equivalence for the end of that period. We will need to decide our new immigration policy, we need to decide what aspects of agriculture we want to subsidise outside the CAP, we need to achieve the roll over of various EU trade deals to the UK, there is in fact plenty to do.

    An admission that oven-ready getting Brexit done is a con trick.
    Brexit will be done on or before 31/1.

    We will be negotiating a FTA post-Brexit but that's not Brexit that is after Brexit. Countries negotiate Free Trade Agreements all the time without being in the EU. Deciding our agriculture, immigration, and trade policies isn't dragging on Brexit it is post-Brexit . . . it is part of being a normal independent sovereign country once more.

    This is the sort of stuff we will do forever which we weren't doing in the EU. Because we will have control back and if you don't like the decisions made you can change them at the next election.
    Literally irrelevant. None of that will solve the problems in your fetishized ‘northern towns’.
    Did you see what I replied to? It was completely relevant to what I replied to, I didn't reply to a comment about 'northern towns'.

    I live in a Northern town myself so I don't need you to tell me about the North thank you.
    And I don’t need you to continue misleading people about what Brexit will or won’t do.

    We all know your desire for Brexit is simply ideological. It has nothing to do with economics or improved lives.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    You’re proud that based on almost every metric the NHS is in a much worse state now than it was in 2010?

    You must have incredibly low standards.
    The country was bankrupt in 2010. We've managed to get rid of Brown's deficit while protecting NHS budgets - if we'd not done that it would be in a much, much, much worse state.
    The country was not bankrupt. What an incredibly laughable statement.
    Yes we were. For every £4 being spent £1 was being borrowed.

    We had to turn on the printing presses and have a decade of relative austerity in order to partially get ourselves out of Brown's mess. Countries that got into a deeper mire had to have real austerity where spending really was cut rather than increasing slower like here - and in those countries healthcare spending was cut rather than increasing spending slower like here.
    Ok. But that has nothing to do with ‘bankruptcy’.
  • In 1950, the NHS spent an estimated £460 million.

    By 2020 it will spend over 340 times as much – around £158.4 billion. The original spending is now a decimal point.

    The Tories have been in power 43 of those 70 years. They've had to come into power after the mess of the 70's and the the crippling mess of the Blair-Brown-Darling years, to fix an economy that Labour has broken each time it has had power.

    So that we can now afford an NHS spend that is 340 times what it was.

    I'm proud of my party's side of that record.

    Labour did not break the economy. Even the Thatcher government blamed the 1970s malaise on the Barber boom and oil price shock rather than Labour. As for the 2000s, the global financial crisis was global, and was not caused by Labour.
    Recessions happen, its a fact of life. The fact that Labour overspent prior to the recession and left us so vulnerable to a recession was caused by Labour - and Brown's hubris in thinking he had "ended boom and bust".

    FPT

    Are you really going to sit here and tell me we'd have had no recession or deficit with them in power? Come on.

    Quite the opposite. I'm not saying we never had recessions, but recessions happen. We coped with recessions because we were taking action to reduce debt-to-GDP prior to the recession hitting in the past. Unfortunately due to Brown's hubris in thinking he'd ended boom and bust he screwed up completely.

    We had a recession under the prior Tory government.

    The prior recession was Q3 1990 - Q3 1991. But every single year from 1984 to 1990 the debt-to-GDP ratio fell.

    1984 43.53
    1985 43.4
    1986 41.76
    1987 39.14
    1988 34.98
    1989 29.26
    1990 26.64

    Debt to GDP was slashed over the 80s so when the recession hit countercyclical spending could kick in.

    Brown hubristically assumed that he "ended boom and bust" and increased spending every year.
    2002 30.05
    2003 31.26
    2004 32.52
    2005 35.6
    2006 36.67
    2007 37.25

    After 16 years of economic growth Brown hubristically increased the deficit and increased debt annually so when the inevitable recession hit we were screwed.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Some idiot Lib Dem woman doing her level best on the Today programme to lose my vote with flannel over China and rubbish about gender recognition.

    At this rate I am going to have spoil my ballot.

    Have the Tories come up with an answer to the WASPI nonsense yet? I gave them a good answer yesterday. Surely one of their researchers reads this site?

    Nicki Morgan seemed to give a fairly shrewd answer on BBC Breakfast Time. She agreed that any injustice must be remedied. The Labour plan was unaffordable ...
    Equality is not an injustice.

    It’s not just the affordability which is the issue. It is wrong in principle; wrong in law - based on the court cases so far; and utterly unfair to other women, men and the young.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    SunnyJim said:

    I am pretty sure they have barely scratched the surface with this list...

    https://twitter.com/crustyq/status/1198736462176555014

    As others have pointed out, Labour and the broader Left play this broken record all the time because it works. I've actually had the "Boris Johnson might sell the NHS to Donald Trump" panic stories repeated to me when discussing this election at work (admittedly by a colleague who has to take a lot of prescription medication and so might be argued, at least in theory, to have more reason to worry than most.) Said individual will almost certainly end up voting Lib Dem anyway, but it does worry and irritate me in equal measure: she's not a reflexive Labour tribal voter and she's certainly not stupid either, but the message is still working its dark magic nonetheless.

    Needless to say, pointing out politely that these warnings have been trotted out at every election for forty years and yet the NHS remains conspicuously intact falls on deaf ears.
    Intact!

    Worst stats on record.
    Remind us, how much extra provision did Labour make in the NHS for the extra three million who came over from the EU?

    But that would that have been a politically embarrasing admission - so let's not make any provision for these 3,000,000 who aren't actually coming because we assessed there's be 30,000. We'll let the Tories pick up the mess and then shout loudly at subsequent elections about its "worst stats on records".

    Well, piss off with that. Your lot dropped a Manchester (530k) and a Birmingham (1.3m) and a Cardiff (350k) and a Glasgow (600k) and a Derby (250k) into the system and said "you don't need any more health care for those new cities - carry on as you are".

    You have lost any moral right to bitch about the state of the NHS after what Labour did.
    Not sure where you get your 3 million number from, but EU migrants are overwhelmingly healthy young adults. Apart from obstetric services they are light users of the NHS. The heavy users are the over 65s and even more so the over 80's, who are overwhelmingly Brits or migrants from half a century ago.
    I recall but cannot remember a statistic that a high proportion of NHS expenditure is incurred during people’s last year of life.
    Figure 1 on the below link doesn't show what you remember, but is certainly consistent with it.

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/five-year-forward-view/next-steps-on-the-nhs-five-year-forward-view/the-nhs-in-2017/
This discussion has been closed.