Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

(even though the UK has been the strongest advocate for Turkish membership throughout the years, and even though accession wouldn't be possible without all current members agreeing)

Yes, Brexiteers have been really approving of what the government was doing with the EU in the last 20 years years, undoubtably approving.

One of the trumpeted proposed deals is with Turkey, which, of course, won't come without reciprocal freedom of movement.

Of course, it's inevitable that nations will never accept trade deals if they dont have free movement deals attached, I mean it's not as if even Merkel herself said a few months ago said she would allow wriggle room on freedom of movement or anythi- oh.

Turkey may want freedom of movement but may's cotinuing aptitude for political self preservation wont let them get it. Either Turkey will drop the idea or there wont be a deal.

Bloody myopic idiots.

Myopic, says the one who wanted to stay shackled to the sinking ship because he feared a more immediate discomfort.

And Blair has entered the arena. I wonder if pro-EU Labour supporters will automatically turn pro-hard Brexit simply to support Corbyn and oppose Blair. The comments on online newspaper articles indicate they will.

The only site I found with approving commenters was the guardian. I forsee Blair ensuring brexit acceptance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know for certain that the Norway model that you thought was the most likely result is definitely off the cards, as the PM has ruled out one of the preconditions. So we won't have the same access to the single market, which accounts for 50% of our exports. We'll need to renegotiate a trade deal to have some kind of access, which has been confirmed won't be as privileged as before (again, this isn't guesswork, but quotes from the powers that be). There are any number of areas where we are uncertain, but we are certain of the above.

We may still end up with a "Transitional Deal" in the Norway model, and then get stuck "in transition" so you don't even know that, really. As to the eventual Trade Deal being less favourable for all concerned, this is not news.

Something else that has been predicted, that is coming to pass bit by bit, is increased costs leading to companies passing on the costs to their customers. For some things we can just do without. However, Labour recently mooted a proposal to cap energy costs. Which suggests there is at least some realistic possibility that energy will be one of the things that will increase in cost in the coming future. Should we do without heating in the future, as one of the necessary belt tightening costs that political Brexit (such as you've trumpeted) will require?

This is an interesting one, actually.

Beskar mentioned a guy who had to switch from getting Bicycle parts from Japan to Italy after the pound dropped, but that they were actually cheaper from Italy. Obviously that price is liable to go up after Brexit, but this raises a number of questions:

1. Why can't we manufacture something as mundane as this ourselves instead of transporting it half way across the world? Aside from anything else this is a waste of shipping and an undeeded impact on the environment, not to mention a waste of time.

2. Why was he getting them from Japan rather than Italy to being with - given we have no trade deal with Japan? Does this mean that, in reality, Trade Deals are not so important.

As a final note, bear in mind that 50% of our exports go to the EU partly because we are in the EU. If we were not in the EU we would have different trade deals with other nations and a different export profile.

One of the ironies about the Leave campaign is that one of the most effective scare stories was the spectre of Turkey joining the EU with subsequent freedom of movement into Britain (even though the UK has been the strongest advocate for Turkish membership throughout the years, and even though accession wouldn't be possible without all current members agreeing). We don't want these Muslims here, right? Now that we've realised that trade negotiations with the post-UK EU won't be as smooth as Brexiteers anticipated, we're scratching around for trade deals with whoever may be interested. One of the trumpeted proposed deals is with Turkey, which, of course, won't come without reciprocal freedom of movement.

Bloody myopic idiots.

One assumes the two groups are the same - it does not follow that because people didn't want free movement of people and labour from Turkey that politicians didn't want a trade deal. Likewise, British politicians wanted the EU in Turkey to bulwark it against Islamism by redirecting its gaze Westwards.

This was never realistic - Turkey would rather be the shark in the Middle East than another fish in Europe.

And Blair has entered the arena. I wonder if pro-EU Labour supporters will automatically turn pro-hard Brexit simply to support Corbyn and oppose Blair. The comments on online newspaper articles indicate they will.

Another example of why Corbyn needs to go, then, if his mere presence drives Labour supporters insane.

[Gilrandir]

2. Why was he getting them from Japan rather than Italy to being with - given we have no trade deal with Japan? Does this mean that, in reality, Trade Deals are not so important.

Trade agreements may not be comprehensive, so some goods may be outside them. Perhaps it was the case.

[LittleGrizzly]

Another example of why Corbyn needs to go, then, if his mere presence drives Labour supporters insane.
................................................................................

You do realise it was Blair not Corbyn who influenced the insane change in the bit you quoted.

The inference of it being another example of him (Blair) needing to go (and his few supporters) Is correct though.

[Pannonian]

Another example of why Corbyn needs to go, then, if his mere presence drives Labour supporters insane.
................................................................................

You do realise it was Blair not Corbyn who influenced the insane change in the bit you quoted.

The inference of it being another example of him (Blair) needing to go (and his few supporters) Is correct though.

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that's been Labour since 1935. The last time the Tories won there, the Weimar Republic still existed.

[Idaho]

That was a pretty dire result in the by-election, whichever way you look at it.

[Greyblades]

Labour splinter when? Cant wait for a labour rights party that isnt smothered by globalist ideologues and identity politics.

Maybe they can even have it without the commies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That was a pretty dire result in the by-election, whichever way you look at it.

It's not looking dire from here at all. Notably, Labour only really held the other seat because the Right Wing/Brexit vote appears to have been split between UKIP and the Tories, and this after UKIP's new leader was hit by a fairly hefty public-relations ruckus.

Don't worry though, I'm sure Corbyn will be re-elected at this year's Labour Party Conference.

[Beskar]

It's not looking dire from here at all. Notably, Labour only really held the other seat because the Right Wing/Brexit vote appears to have been split between UKIP and the Tories, and this after UKIP's new leader was hit by a fairly hefty public-relations ruckus.

It was when he was saying he was the camera man during the moon landings, and Neil Armstrong stole the limelight as they wanted to film the 'first' steps which got me doubting his authenticity.

[LittleGrizzly]

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that has been Labour since 1935.
...................................................................................................

How about all the Scottish seats Blairite policy destroyed Labour in?

How many of them? how long had Labour held them all?

The reason Labour finds itself unelectable is because of years of Blairite policy destroying Labours left wing vote, we weren't winning elections before Corbyn came along, we were losing.

This is also without the Blairite wing making every effort to sabotage the party.

I remember hearing when I was younger about the genius of Blair proposing Conservative policies in the house of commons and forcing the conservatives to either oppose what they support because Labour proposed it or back Labour policy.

Genius, apart from the fact many Labour supporters, who voted Labour exactly because they didn't want Conservative policy.

The Labour party is suffering a pretty bad hangover right now and reaching back for the whisky that caused it in the first place would be the worst thing it can do.

[Pannonian]

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that has been Labour since 1935.
...................................................................................................

How about all the Scottish seats Blairite policy destroyed Labour in?

How many of them? how long had Labour held them all?

The reason Labour finds itself unelectable is because of years of Blairite policy destroying Labours left wing vote, we weren't winning elections before Corbyn came along, we were losing.

This is also without the Blairite wing making every effort to sabotage the party.

I remember hearing when I was younger about the genius of Blair proposing Conservative policies in the house of commons and forcing the conservatives to either oppose what they support because Labour proposed it or back Labour policy.

Genius, apart from the fact many Labour supporters, who voted Labour exactly because they didn't want Conservative policy.

The Labour party is suffering a pretty bad hangover right now and reaching back for the whisky that caused it in the first place would be the worst thing it can do.

By Conservative policy, do you mean things like invoking article 50?

[LittleGrizzly]

That's people policy to be honest with you. As stupid and costly as its going to be people voted for Brexit so the politicians have to give it to them, even as someone who doesn't want it myself the only way out I could possibly justify is holding another referendum once the terms of Brexit are clear.

For someone who rants at Corbyn for his lack of electability it seems a strange criticism, surely anything else would have really annoyed leave voters whereas it is hard for many people to complain about Corbyn accepting the referendum result.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking of him, Corbyn has just managed to lose a seat that has been Labour since 1935.
...................................................................................................

How about all the Scottish seats Blairite policy destroyed Labour in?

How many of them? how long had Labour held them all?

The reason Labour finds itself unelectable is because of years of Blairite policy destroying Labours left wing vote, we weren't winning elections before Corbyn came along, we were losing.

This is also without the Blairite wing making every effort to sabotage the party.

I remember hearing when I was younger about the genius of Blair proposing Conservative policies in the house of commons and forcing the conservatives to either oppose what they support because Labour proposed it or back Labour policy.

Genius, apart from the fact many Labour supporters, who voted Labour exactly because they didn't want Conservative policy.

The Labour party is suffering a pretty bad hangover right now and reaching back for the whisky that caused it in the first place would be the worst thing it can do.

Now hang on a second, Tony Blair never lost an election.

This is the last election he fought, in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_2005

You can clearly see that Labour's heartland in Scotland is largely in tact, the SNP has made only small gains at this point and Labour is very much the party of Scottish Government, in the Scottish Parliament too irrc.

Labour loses it's first election in 2010 under Gordon Brown, who is generally considered to have been Left of Blair, and does even worse in 2015 under Ed Milliband who was significantly to the Left of both. Indeed, the SNP's almost clean sweep happened under "Red Ed". Now Labour has lost a By-Election to a sitting Government in a time of economic uncertainty under the Far-Left Corbyn.

At this point simply claiming "we weren't Left-Wing enough" is not credible. The more Left-Wing Labour goes the less the public is buying what they're selling. That's not surprising, really, because the General Public don't want a Left-Wing or Right-Wing government - they want a Centerist one. That's why Blair and Cameron both did well, because they represented the more Centrist parts of their own parties, and they nabbed good ideas "from the other side."

Even that isn't really the problem, though, because the reality is that politics aside Corbyn is not a good leader. He applied a three-line whip to the Brexit vote and then didn't punish MP's that rebelled.

[Pannonian]

Now hang on a second, Tony Blair never lost an election.

This is the last election he fought, in 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_2005

You can clearly see that Labour's heartland in Scotland is largely in tact, the SNP has made only small gains at this point and Labour is very much the party of Scottish Government, in the Scottish Parliament too irrc.

Labour loses it's first election in 2010 under Gordon Brown, who is generally considered to have been Left of Blair, and does even worse in 2015 under Ed Milliband who was significantly to the Left of both. Indeed, the SNP's almost clean sweep happened under "Red Ed". Now Labour has lost a By-Election to a sitting Government in a time of economic uncertainty under the Far-Left Corbyn.

At this point simply claiming "we weren't Left-Wing enough" is not credible. The more Left-Wing Labour goes the less the public is buying what they're selling. That's not surprising, really, because the General Public don't want a Left-Wing or Right-Wing government - they want a Centerist one. That's why Blair and Cameron both did well, because they represented the more Centrist parts of their own parties, and they nabbed good ideas "from the other side."

Even that isn't really the problem, though, because the reality is that politics aside Corbyn is not a good leader. He applied a three-line whip to the Brexit vote and then didn't punish MP's that rebelled.

I remember when Blair was Leader of the Opposition. He and the Shadow Cabinet consistently put Major's government under intense pressure, forcing policy changes and ministerial changes when they weren't up to scratch. Nowadays Corbyn draws a salary as Leader of the Opposition, but I'm not sure which part of the job description he does. On an issue where 48% of the electorate voted otherwise, he whipped his party into ushering it through without requiring scrutiny. The Opposition are supposed to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. If they don't oppose, are they still loyal? Shouldn't they hand over to someone who will do the job more effectively, like the SNP?

[LittleGrizzly]

So all those Labour voters switched to SNP because of Ed Milliband?!

They'd been delighted with Blairite policy all these years but then because Ed was slightly to the left of Blair they all jumped ship to the SNP?

I'd be amazed if you could find even a small percentage of SNP voters who would have voted Labour rather than SNP had the labour candidate been more of a Blairite than Ed.

Ed walked into an impossible job in Scotland, just like in 1997 they wanted to kick the Tories out of Scotland except this time they were wearing red rosettes.

I realise you have a lot of bias when it come to Corbyn but don't you wonder at all why Labour had lots of Scottish seats before the Blairites took power but within a few years of them leaving power Labour has lost almost all of them.

Being too left wing isn't the reason all those Scottish voters abandoned Labour, they abandoned them because they did nothing for them in office, they abandoned them because they noticed very little difference to the Tories, which is why they all but kicked them out of Scotland first.

Labour has an identity problem now partially left over from the Blairite years where it is difficult to prove to a large amount of potential Labour voters that we are different. Too many of them remember Blair and believe differently.

[LittleGrizzly]

You would just have people whining that he didn't care about electability, one of your biggest complaints about him. Especially considering it was UKIP who were going to be a threat in some Labour seats.

But then for this issue you don't want him to do the sensible thing in terms of electability but to do what you want him to do despite the fact it will cost him votes.

So you don't really care about electability wen you criticise him on other issues, you just use electability as a cover to attack him for not doing what you want.

For once Corbyn is doing the most sensible thing in terms of vote winning and those who criticise him most strongly still criticise him for it. It is almost as if their problem is ideological...

[Fragony]

You would just have people whining that he didn't care about electability, one of your biggest complaints about him. Especially considering it was UKIP who were going to be a threat in some Labour seats.

But then for this issue you don't want him to do the sensible thing in terms of electability but to do what you want him to do despite the fact it will cost him votes.

So you don't really care about electability wen you criticise him on other issues, you just use electability as a cover to attack him for not doing what you want.

For once Corbyn is doing the most sensible thing in terms of vote winning and those who criticise him most strongly still criticise him for it. It is almost as if their problem is ideological...

Would it be odd if it was ideological? Corbyn's selling point is being ideological, that is the path he takes.

[Beskar]

If we want to be fair, the SNP are more "Left-Wing" than Labour are. So it isn't a case where being Left-Wing got them kicked out of Scotland, it was more that the Scottish wanted a Left-Wing alternative which stood up for them, which was the SNP. They were ignored by their own Scottish Labour Prime-Minister (Brown) and the Lib-Dems jumped into bed with the Conservatives. Also Nicola Sturgeon did very well in the pre-election debates, that even people in England wish they could vote for local SNP candidates for their areas, as they identified with her brand of politics the most. (to be fair, I would have chosen her in that election too)

Lib Dems were actually doing the 'right thing' and watering down right-wing policy, but lost the respect of the general electorate which punished for it, and the Conservatives claimed the successes the Lib-Dem did as their own handiwork as they re-branded them as their 'successes'. This led to complete decimation of the party in Scotland.

After the coalition government with Cameron and now under Theresa May, you are seeing real conservative policy which is ruining the country. Since they cannot actually win against arguments such as "More funding of the NHS" as they cut-funding by 15% real-terms since the coalition government and even though we have this massive crisis with A&E, 1 in 6 A&E departments are set to close due to lack of funding... they turn to the alternative, attack Corbyn and use the Murdock-Guard-Dog & Daily Fail to do the dirty-work for them.

As for Copeland, there is this Jonathan Pie clip about it.


Main Points:
Copeland has been losing votes for years, it only won by 2000 votes last time.
Votes gained by Tories were not from Labour, but from UKIP thanks to Paul Nuttall's terrible leadership.
Labour Blairite MP resigned to put Corbyn intentionally into the manure whilst he goes to a cushy job.
Tony Blair and Peter Mendelson both wanted Corbyn to lose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So all those Labour voters switched to SNP because of Ed Milliband?!

They'd been delighted with Blairite policy all these years but then because Ed was slightly to the left of Blair they all jumped ship to the SNP?

I'd be amazed if you could find even a small percentage of SNP voters who would have voted Labour rather than SNP had the labour candidate been more of a Blairite than Ed.

Ed walked into an impossible job in Scotland, just like in 1997 they wanted to kick the Tories out of Scotland except this time they were wearing red rosettes.

I realise you have a lot of bias when it come to Corbyn but don't you wonder at all why Labour had lots of Scottish seats before the Blairites took power but within a few years of them leaving power Labour has lost almost all of them.

Being too left wing isn't the reason all those Scottish voters abandoned Labour, they abandoned them because they did nothing for them in office, they abandoned them because they noticed very little difference to the Tories, which is why they all but kicked them out of Scotland first.

Labour has an identity problem now partially left over from the Blairite years where it is difficult to prove to a large amount of potential Labour voters that we are different. Too many of them remember Blair and believe differently.

I think you have a greater bias regarding Corbyn than I do, frankly, and I think you're confusing electable with political "purity". Corbyn appeals more to Labour's traditional Left-Wing base but it much less popular than any other recent Labour leader - including Blair.

To blame Blair for the losses in the 2010 election doesn't track. By that point Blair was several years out of Office, Gordon Brown was firmly in control and irrc Blair was barely visible during the campaign. If Blair, specifically, was the problem then the collapse would have happened five years earlier. As it was the real collapse happened in 2015 under a leader who was very different ideologically, and definitely Left-Wing.

I'm not a fan of Tony Blair, for a number of reasons, and I probably agree with you in regards to his character but Labour need to stop blaming him for problems when he has been out of Office, and Parliament, for over a decade.

If we want to be fair, the SNP are more "Left-Wing" than Labour are. So it isn't a case where being Left-Wing got them kicked out of Scotland, it was more that the Scottish wanted a Left-Wing alternative which stood up for them, which was the SNP. They were ignored by their own Scottish Labour Prime-Minister (Brown) and the Lib-Dems jumped into bed with the Conservatives.

Lib Dems were actually doing the 'right thing' and watering down right-wing policy, but lost the respect of the general electorate which punished for it, and the Conservatives claimed the successes the Lib-Dem did as their own handiwork as they re-branded them as their 'successes'.

After the coalition government with Cameron and now under Theresa May, you are seeing real conservative policy which is ruining the country. Since they cannot actually win against arguments such as "More funding of the NHS" as they cut-funding by 15% real-terms since the coalition government and even though we have this massive crisis with A&E, 1 in 6 A&E departments are set to close due to lack of funding... they turn to the alternative, attack Corbyn and use the Murdock-Guard-Dog & Daily Fail to do the dirty-work for them.

This is a disappointingly blinkered post. The idea that the Lib-Dems "watered down" Conservative Policy is more Myth than fact. Two examples - legalisation of homosexual marriage and raising of the tax free allowance - were in the Conservative Manifesto.

Fact is - there's little to separate David Cameron and Nick Clegg politically, or indeed socially. There was that famous Mic pickup where they walk off-set after talking to the public and Clegg says to Cameron "if we keep going like this we'll have nothing to disagree about." (sic). The Acrimony in the Coalition (that ultimately killed off most of the Lib-Dems) days to the period after the AV Referendum when, on the direction of George Osborne, the Conservatives ran attack adds against Clegg. This worked tactically to win said Referendum but proved to be a major strategic blunder as it soured the working relationship in government.

The counter-argument is always Tuition Fees but the reality there is they were always going to go up, so long as number of places goes up.

Teresa May is a different Kettle of fish to David Cameron, certainly, but she's also the one who coined the phrase "nasty party" as a warning to other Conservatives.

You say the NHS has had a 15% cut in real-terms in the last five years? Well, the NHS had massive cash injections during the Blair years and it didn't perform much better then - so just throwing money at the problem won't help. Every other department has received bigger cuts, cuts which have resulted in job losses amongst other things, and we're still running a deficit. The NHS has been ring-fenced for a long time, a practice with ideological motives, not practical ones.

[Pannonian]

I think you have a greater bias regarding Corbyn than I do, frankly, and I think you're confusing electable with political "purity". Corbyn appeals more to Labour's traditional Left-Wing base but it much less popular than any other recent Labour leader - including Blair.

To blame Blair for the losses in the 2010 election doesn't track. By that point Blair was several years out of Office, Gordon Brown was firmly in control and irrc Blair was barely visible during the campaign. If Blair, specifically, was the problem then the collapse would have happened five years earlier. As it was the real collapse happened in 2015 under a leader who was very different ideologically, and definitely Left-Wing.

I'm not a fan of Tony Blair, for a number of reasons, and I probably agree with you in regards to his character but Labour need to stop blaming him for problems when he has been out of Office, and Parliament, for over a decade.

Labour's Campaigns manager Ian Lavery says that Corbyn is "one of the most popular politicians in the country". So popular in fact, that he is net negative among every single demographic. Even among Labour voters (-2).

[Beskar]

You say the NHS has had a 15% cut in real-terms in the last five years? Well, the NHS had massive cash injections during the Blair years and it didn't perform much better then - so just throwing money at the problem won't help. Every other department has received bigger cuts, cuts which have resulted in job losses amongst other things, and we're still running a deficit. The NHS has been ring-fenced for a long time, a practice with ideological motives, not practical ones.

Yet our funding based on GDP is decreasing further, lower than countries such as Greece and Slovenia. We are getting a very good healthcare service for what we are paying, but if we want it to be the best, you need to actually invest in it, especially with a growing and aging population, rather than cutting it, closing beds and units. This makes the costs even higher, because patients have to use private hospital beds. The cost difference for these beds are roughly treated in NHS £300~ per night, compared to Private £700~. Big American healthchains such as Acadia are buying up local private healthcare providers to cash in on the opportunities.

But I guess you are correct. I am guessing your support for 'further austerity', further cuts to corporation tax is the solution, renewing trident even though it fails its testing, and the mass selling/privatisation of our infrastructure to French and China, even though it hasn't worked and the countries debt has got worst, not better, in the last 10 years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet our funding based on GDP is decreasing further, lower than countries such as Greece and Slovenia. We are getting a very good healthcare service for what we are paying, but if we want it to be the best, you need to actually invest in it, especially with a growing and aging population, rather than cutting it, closing beds and units. This makes the costs even higher, because patients have to use private hospital beds. The cost difference for these beds are roughly treated in NHS £300~ per night, compared to Private £700~. Big American healthchains such as Acadia are buying up local private healthcare providers to cash in on the opportunities.

But I guess you are correct. I am guessing your support for 'further austerity', further cuts to corporation tax is the solution, renewing trident even though it fails its testing, and the mass selling/privatisation of our infrastructure to French and China, even though it hasn't worked and the countries debt has got worst, not better, in the last 10 years.

Where did I say I supported any of the above? I just said I don't support ring-fencing the NHS budget at the expense of other departments.

Here's something I found on NHS funding from the BMA: https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files...2016.pdf?la=en

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Key points
– The £10 billion increase in NHS spending by 2020/21 initially seemed a very generous settlement
for the NHS. However, the Nuffield Trust, The Health Foundation and The King’s Fund have calculated
that total health spending in England will rise by only £4.5 billion in real terms between 2015/16
and 2020/21. This puts the NHS half way through the most austere decade in its history, with public
spending on health as a proportion of GDP falling to 6.7 per cent by 2020/21.
– The £4.5 billion real increase in health spending is far less than the £8 billion of extra funding called for
by the Five Year Forward View. This is further exacerbated by the provider sector deficit and the fact that
the funding increase is also expected to cover the transition to a seven-day NHS. The Government has
yet to acknowledge this or come up with credible proposals for how the funding gap will be filled.
– Recent funding announcements in technology, mental health and general practice are confusing
and, when analysed in more detail, seem to be a case of re-assigning money that had already
been announced. We call for greater transparency to accompany future funding announcements,
particularly around where funding will be taken from as well as how and when it will be distributed.
– In 2016/17 there is a lack of available funding for transformation. The investment needed to achieve
the vision and scale of efficiency savings set out in the Five Year Forward View will be pushed back to
2017/18 onwards, where there are much smaller increases to NHS funding. It is difficult to see how the
NHS will be able to make real progress on transformation in the short to medium term.
– As NHS provider deficits continue to increase we remain concerned that even more money will be
diverted from transformation to help reach financial balance.
– There is still no credible plan for the majority of the £22 billion efficiency savings that the NHS needs
to make by 2020/21. Even if we assume that all the measures the Government has announced so far
achieve the savings predicted and generate no additional costs, which seems unlikely, this only results
in £6.5 billion of savings for the NHS.
– The measures used by the NHS to achieve efficiency savings over the last Parliament are no longer
viable. The NHS needs to come up with an alternative plan to achieve sustainable efficiency savings
on this scale, without this taking priority over the need to maintain patient safety, clinical quality and
consistently improve performance.
– This Government has funded the increase to NHS funding by making cuts to Department of Health
spend outside of NHS England. This includes cuts to budgets for public health, education and training,
capital spend and national bodies such as NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).
Spending in these areas is being cut by more than £3 billion over the next five years. There is very little
information on how this decrease in spending will be managed.
– The Government’s decision to cut spending outside of NHS England’s budget is incredibly shortsighted.
Budget cuts in all of these areas will result in increased costs for the NHS and the taxpayer in the future.
Once again, the announcements in this area were not transparent. By referring to what most would
consider to be core NHS services, health visiting, drug and alcohol services and sexual health services,
as “Whitehall budgets”, the Government has not set out the true extent of the funding cuts.
– Another route for the NHS to save money would be to look more widely at the efficiency of care
across the system and, in particular, at the scope to moderate pressures on the system as a result of
improved population health. However, the Spending Review revealed a cut to public health budgets
of 3.9 per cent a year. It is very unclear how this fits with the Five Year Forward View’s call for ‘a radical
upgrade in prevention and public health’.
British Medical Association Funding and efficiency 3
– NHS England has repeatedly made it clear that a lack of investment in social care will have a significant
impact on the NHS. Yet the social care funding gap is likely to be somewhere between £2.8 billion
and £3.5 billion by the end of the Parliament, with spending on social care as a proportion of GDP at
0.9 per cent. The lack of clarity around recent changes to social care funding means there is still a
great deal of uncertainty about what social care funding will look like over the next five years.
– The shift towards a social care system based on locally-raised revenue emphasises the growing
difference in how health and social care are funded, despite the Government’s commitment to join up
health and social care across the country by 2020.
– Combined spending on health and social care is predicted to be 7.6 per cent as a proportion of GDP by
2020/21, far below the proposal in the Barker Report that there is a ringfenced budget for both health
and social care that represents 11 per cent to 12 per cent of GDP.

The last point is very important - given that it's generally felt that government spending should be around 40% of GDP and never more than 50% except in time of war 11-12% of GDP equates to roughly 1/4 of total government spending, or more. The NHS is not the only service under-funded, the Armed Forces suffers from chronic under-funding that has resulted in, among other things, ridiculous white-elephant carriers and too few destroyers and frigates to meet our needs and commitments in relation to defence and maritime anti-piracy. That's to say nothing of the staffing cuts that have left many young men, in particular, without a viable alternative career and veterans without the care they need to cope with injuries and battle-stress. The last point is particularly pregnant because the NHS will never be properly equipped to deal with soldiers, they need specialised hospitals staffed my army doctors and army nurses.

Meanwhile, despite decades of apple funding the NHS was losing money even before the last budget.

[Pannonian]

Council ‘shock’ at Growth Deal announcement

The Council has expressed its disappointment that Cornwall is set to receive just £18 million in Growth Deal investment over the next three years, despite being one of the poorest parts of the UK.

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) had been encouraged to make “an ambitious” bid into the Growth Deal and consequently asked for £127 million.
...
The funding settlement is significantly less than the previous Growth Deal allocation given to Cornwall and falls far short, says the Council, of the investment required if Government is going to ensure that Cornwall does not lose out when European funding ceases as a result of the UK leaving the EU. EU funding currently provides £60 million per year to develop vital local projects such as superfast broadband and business support.

What was that I said?

If the country mice are so confident about life outside the EU, then they should accept whatever the UK government hands out to them rather than ask for assurances, including any loss of investment as the price to be paid for reasserting national sovereignty. As with the cited example of Liverpool, back in the days before the EU took an interest in promoting regional identities, the UK government were free to carry out a policy of starving regions that were deemed to be politically undesirable or irrelevant. That kind of policymaking was, of course, what estranged Scotland from England, with the Scots deemed to be a suitable test bed for policies that the UK government wanted to try out on a limited scope before introducing them to England. With the Europeans out of the equation, the UK government is free to resume this strategy, free from any worry that the EU may make up for what they deliberately set out to deprive the regions of.

Serves them right.

[LittleGrizzly]

PVC 1stparagrph.

I have to disagree with your assertion that Blair is more popular than Corbyn, given the group of people that actually have a chance of voting Labour I'd imagine many more would prefer Corbyn over Blair.

If you mean Corbyn now versus Blair then and by popularity you mean vote winning then Corbyn from back then would also beat the Corbyn of now as well as the circumstances were far more favourable.

2nd Paragraph

If you think Brown is somehow radically different from Blair then you think differently to me and the majority of potential Labour voters. Gordon Brown certainly would come under the grouping of Blairite. By the time Miliband came in after years of the Blairites it was far too late.

Beskar
'It was the Scottish wanted a more left wing government'

Exactly!

People seem outraged about this one seat but blasé about the tens of seats lost, its almost as if the many conservatives and UKIP voters I hear criticising Corbyn don't genuinely care about Labour winning but actually just dislike the Labour leaders views.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to disagree with your assertion that Blair is more popular than Corbyn, given the group of people that actually have a chance of voting Labour I'd imagine many more would prefer Corbyn over Blair.

If you mean Corbyn now versus Blair then and by popularity you mean vote winning then Corbyn from back then would also beat the Corbyn of now as well as the circumstances were far more favourable.

Corbyn was popular as a back-bench radical, he's not popular as a leader - his attitude to leadership and his more extreme views (like Republicanism) make him fundamentally unelectable.

I should also make the point that "vote winning" is popularity, any other measure amounts to "abstract admiration" or "general good feeling". What's more, the more you learn about Corbyn the less appealing he becomes - his ties to anti-Semitics, his multiple marriages, his refusal to give his children the grammar education he enjoyed, his ties to Trots...

In reality Blair is unpopular now because of Iraq, and the handling of the Foot and Mouth outbreak - those were "big issues" but quite specific ones.

If you think Brown is somehow radically different from Blair then you think differently to me and the majority of potential Labour voters. Gordon Brown certainly would come under the grouping of Blairite. By the time Miliband came in after years of the Blairites it was far too late.

As Labour has moved further to the Left it has become less popular and less electable. Winning elections isn't about the people "likely to vote Labour", it's about the people unlikely to vote Labour, that's how you win the election - by convincing the broadest possible cross-section of society you have the right ideas.

You do that by occupying the place most normal people occupy - the centre - not the Left or Right.

Exactly!

People seem outraged about this one seat but blasé about the tens of seats lost, its almost as if the many conservatives and UKIP voters I hear criticising Corbyn don't genuinely care about Labour winning but actually just dislike the Labour leaders views.

Would it surprise you if I said I rather think we'd be better off if a Left of Centre party won in 2020?

[Beskar]

Would it surprise you if I said I rather think we'd be better off if a Left of Centre party won in 2020?

Depends on what you define as Left of Centre. Blair is considered right of centre. This is mostly down to the argument of "Different shades of neo-liberalism".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Depends on what you define as Left of Centre. Blair is considered right of centre. This is mostly down to the argument of "Different shades of neo-liberalism".

I was thinking of the more Centrist wing of the party before Blair - as opposed to the pro-Russian Left-Wing from which Corbyn, McDonnell and the late Michael Foot come from.

[Pannonian]

Depends on what you define as Left of Centre. Blair is considered right of centre. This is mostly down to the argument of "Different shades of neo-liberalism".

Thatcher happened. And in the post-Thatcher world, Blair can't in any shape or form be regarded as right of centre. It is the insistence that Blair is right of centre that has led to Labour moving further and further away from the worldview as seen by the British electorate (as opposed to the Labour membership). The Labour electorate elects the Labour leader. But the British electorate elects the British government.

And "neo-liberalism" gets thrown around too easily, as a label to discredit anything the Left doesn't like. FWIW, pure neo-liberalism has never been willingly enacted by any government, and certainly not by Blair (his Labour government poured money into public services, which is the antithesis of neo-liberalism). Even Thatcher, who shifted the political environment towards neo-liberalism, was never a pure neo-liberal. What the hardline Brexiters are advocating would be a significant shift towards a purer neo-liberalism, but Major has noted that the British people, once the implications are understood, will never stand for it. That's why the accusations of Blair and neo-liberalism are inaccurate and lazy, used as a meme to dismiss a huge tract of the political scene.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Concepts of "Left" and "Right" don't always track onto corresponding policies, either.

Grammar Schools - a wholly State-funded education which strives to provide a quality of instruction approaching that of expensive fee paying schools with the only criteria for entry being academic merit. It's an inherently Left-Wing policy that has produced many of Labour's best Politicians and yet it is loathed by the "Left" today, including the current Leader of the Opposition who was himself a beneficiary.

Yes, I know all about the "game the system with tutors" argument but right now the well off just game the system by buying up all the houses in a catchment area and then getting "their lot" in as the School Governors. Which is a darn site easier than getting ten-year old Timmy to pay attention to that Tutor you're spending £50 an hour on.

[LittleGrizzly]

PFH

TBH when I said people likely to vote Labour more precisely I meant those that have a moderate chance of voting Labour (with the right things in place) as opposed to those who would struggle to vote for Labour even if they could write the policy out word for word.

I do not think Corbyn will get elected but I don't think any of his Blairite opponents stand a chance either and would probably receive far less votes than Corbyn.

It Is all well and good the Labour party shifting to the right in order to win votes from the right of the electorate but Labour needs the left wing vote to have a chance of winning an election. There aren't enough Blairites and Tories who would consider swapping parties to make it work.

Of course you can stick anyone at the head of the Tories or Labour and they'll get lots of votes and seats but there just aren't enough people for the Blairites to win an election, I certainly won't be voting for one in anything but extreme circumstances.