UKH

Since Jeremy became leader of the Opposition, there have been scare stories of what he would do to the party and the country if he got in power because of his extremist views.

Well we have a new extremist Tory Prime Minister who is threatening to deselect Tory MP's, at a future election, if  they do not follow orders over leaving Europe. Should such inflammatory things be said on the eve of the anniversary of Britain declaring war 80 years ago?

Who should you fear the most?

Jeremy Corbyn 

Tories can do a lot of harm within the next month. Disrupt both supply chains ("f*** business" to quote our pm) and the good Friday agreement. The latter will sour relations with EU and usa.

Labour have no prospect of matching that even in a full term of parliament as they have fewer head banger ideologues.

McDonnell.

My main issue with Corbyn is that he extrapolates his large popularity with a certain demographic and believes that he can gain ground in 'middle england' and against the SNP and form a majority labour govt. He is deluding himself, and with the lack of any credible opposition, the Johnsonite Tories are riding us all bareback. 

Dominic Cummings.

The right wing press are pushing that one too, it's their project fear. The real alternative to the Tories is Labour as part of a coalition, up to the electorate.

Oddly it's Corbyn by enabling the Tories to do what they are doing.  He's got options for stopping this madness but he is going to f*ck it up by his delusional belief that he has widespread support.

Good point. I was going to say Boris, because unlike Corbyn, he's intent on destroying Parliamentary democracy (or at least turning the populace against parliament), whereas Corbyn isn't. Yet, he's enabling it. If there were an effective opposition this wouldn't be happening.

Pray tell, what mechanism exists for Corbyn to stop this? .

Interesting that most on here start talking about Jeremy Corbyn when the subject is the Labour party.

The two aren't the same.

Maybe criticism of the party should be focussed on what was in their 2017 manifesto or what particular policy Labour have that is more damaging to the UK than the tories lust for wreaking havoc on our lives.

Pray tell what?

What have I asked, in the OP, for Corbyn to stop?

  One of the main problems with Johnson's "exploitation" (other words can be used)  of the constitution is that he is setting precedents that much more dangerous people eg.McDonnell/Milne/Corbyn will have no compunction in repeating and taking further.

The Tories. They're the ones pushing an extreme ideology and ignoring what passes for the constitution in this country, and they're the ones who are very likely to let brexit happen without arranging a withdrawal agreement with our neighbours.

There's a fair chance there will be a no confidence vote disrupting them shortly, but that will probably just lead to a general election they'll win by wooing the Farage voters, or by forming a coalition with the brexit party. Then we'll have a chaotic brexit and five more years of them 'liberating' our public services and 'streamlining' our rights and environmental regulations.

A strong opposition has huge influence on government policy, house of commons voting and the way they conduct business.

A weak opposition means the party in power goes unchallenged, unquestioned etc..  on their chosen course. Which has been the case for 6 or 7 years. Although the lib dems did water down tory policy in the coalition years. 

You mean apart from all the Labour policies that the Tories have nicked, and the fact that Starmer et al have done some sterling work with getting them to back down on things etc.

This Tory government doesn't give a crap, it's becoming desperately populist to ensure it's survival.

Tories.  They've got stark staring mad and they will only get worse if they get their Brexit.  The next thing will be a trade treaty with the US that locks us into a US style economy indefinitely.   Then they will f*ck the devolution settlement by removing powers from the Scottish parliament by stirring up English MPs using the GERS figures to argue Scotland is subsidised by English taxes.   They'll put a hard border in Ireland shout about IRA terrorists when the protests turn violent and give the DUP free reign.  All the promises to EU citizens living in the UK will be abandoned the second they become inconvenient. They'll be f*cked over and stolen from by being pushed out the country and not being provided with the pension and health care rights they've paid in for.   The current crop of Tory Brexiteer politicians are absolute scum.

No matter how crazy Jeremy Corbyn is, as long as the UK stays in the EU he will be prevented by EU law from following through on his more radical plans.

Staying in the EU protects us from both the crazy right and the crazy left wing of UK politics which is why they both want to leave. 

When the Conservatives have done all the things that you list will they then go on to win the next general election?

I agree with a lot of that.  Unfortunately, Corbyn still wants to leave.  If he'd come out and said unequivocally that Labour's policy was to remain, he'd be PM already.

Simple. Step down in favour of Keir Starmer. It would be the only way to win the imminent General Election by gaining support of the swing voters in swing seats.  With Boris' hard line stance reclaiming votes from the Brexit party and also those traditional Labour voters who would also prefer Brexit there's no way Labour could win an election under Corbyn.

I fear Boris will call a snap election this week to ensure polling day will precede Brexit so preventing the ensuing chaos effecting the election result, also dodging the impact of any legislation introduced this week.

Corbyn is as guilty as Johnson in delivering a hard Brexit, also putting Labour in the wilderness for another 5 years.

You may disagree with my views but I challenge anybody to argue against the arithmetic.

He could resign as leader of the Labour Party, or at least state that he would accept someone else as caretaker PM.

Johnson, obviously, as he has more than a passing chance of being elected. 

I've never voted conservative in my life, but will, if it's the only way to keep Corbyn out.

Genuine question, what do you (or anyone else) think he's going to do that's so bad? I don't think he's particularly great but in bigger picture terms he basically seems to be a fairly mainstream social democrat.

The Conservative and Unionist Party... though we should no longer indulge them in that name since they are currently a revolutionary party of English nationalists.

jk

Absolutely. Especially if they f*** us dirty forei——EU citizens over.

Agreed. He's inept in my view, I don't like the neo-Stalinists in his camp and his vision of socialism is backward looking and doesn't deal with the problems the UK and the world are going to face, but his policies aren't really that radical. Not much different from Ed Milliband's. 

You're right about the possibility of exploitation by much more dangerous people of course - never leave a weapon lying about for other people to use. But I suspect the main danger from Corbyn and co will be ineptitude. 

I could never imagine voting for Corbyn, but I will if it's the only way to stop Johnson.

The Tories are pursuing a policy guaranteed to damage the economy, they then intend to exacerbate spending constraints by corporate and income tax reductions which will lead to a decimation of public services. 

If Labour's manifesto was implemented we would probably see catastrophic borrowing but possibly a more equal society.

Both would probably have incompetent cabinets. 

The other thing about Corbyn he's not likely to last long (partic if he does v badly in a GE) and is very likely to be replaced by someone both wiser and less extreme.

Corbyn's speech in Salford this morning (on TV) was actually quite good.  A lot of effort and thought seems to have gone into it from pragmatic and centerist rather than Momentum advisors.  I got the impression that Labour's wargamers have been as busy as Cummins' team. One nuance that stood out was "....stop no deal Brexit THEN general election" which may hint at not falling into Boris' trap to support an immediate general election - we shall see.

No evidence yet of credibility to win over the floating voters

I would vote Labour, but not with Corbyn and his loony left string pulling "comrades" in charge. Corbyn's stance on Trident terrifies me.My constituency is marginal and likely to result in a strong Brexit Party bid against the sitting Member who is Amber Rudd. I fear that it's Hobson's choice, and my vote would be for Rudd, not Johnson even though that's effectively what it would be. Abstaining or voting Lob Dem isn't a sensible option given the seriousness of the situation, and the lack of overall support for the latter which would result in a wasted vote.

Dreadful, dreadful situation when we are forced to chose the "least bad" rather than who we really want....

Yes to this

Not sure how borrowing can be catastrophic at such low interest rates. Particularly if it's used to stimulate useful parts of the economy -- i.e. pay our health service, teachers, emergency services etc properly, properly fund local councils, maybe even consider implementing a Green New Deal. Most of these are recognised to have multiplying factors of >1, so the tax revenue from economic activity should pretty much repay the borrowed money automatically. There are other options to borrowing as well, but I can't be bothered to get into that discussion right now.

Yes

FWIW, the Tories scare me much more than Labour do, although with my socialist leanings this is of little surprise. I think Labour probably would mis-manage a few things, but ultimately their policies lean toward wealth redistribution and public investment. We need both of these things.

The current erosion of democracy and constitutional process by the Tories is terrifying and anyone who would still vote for them after this past week's antics probably doesn't grasp the magnitude of what Johnson et al. is trying to pull off right now. 

More importantly, the government's recent behaviour makes civil unrest, and quite possibly civil war,  feel a lot more likely than I would ever want them to, especially within a country which is supposed to be the mother of modern democracy.

Looks to me like the pre-brexit election trap is on people's radar but the other, of inadequate or incomplete blocking legislation leaving brexit opponents compelled by reason to vote through May's deal as the lesser evil while Conservatives abstain in droves to keep their hands clean is getting little attention. I can't see anyone putting rushed blocking legislation together going any further than pulling together the easiest majority, for requesting another extension with no caveats about what that extension is to be used for (since they can't agree) nor what happens if it is not forthcoming for one reason or another (revoke A50 then go back to the public but again no majority). That leaves open the possibility of Johnson double crossing half his cabinet and using the opposition to pass May's deal. He delivers brexit in a reasonably orderly way, blame shared in the long run if it goes tits up, in the short term the opposition lose the trust of their remainer support base and can fight an election as Mr Brexit, the man that could, it's maybe not the election he'd ideally choose but a potentially winnable one.

He keeps talking about securing 'a deal', it'll be May's of course with sprinkles at best. The question is does he actually intend to put it to parliament or is this all time wasting toward an election on a full blown populist 'people vs the system' footing.

jk

I don't think so.  The Brexit Party maintains they will stand against Boris in a GE if he gives in on the backstop.  His main reason for pushing no deal is to maximise his majority from a GE by taking votes from the Brexit Party

If there is a GE election before Brexit happens, there may be a chance of a remain alliance and then coalition stopping Johnson. I fear that if he gets his  no deal and has a GE election soon enough afterwards before the chaos really bites and there being little point in a remain alliance or the Brexit party any more,  he could, with FPTP, get a big majority. Then the country really is f*cked. 

I'm still not clear why you consider "least bad" as you say you favour Labour over the Tories but would vote Cons. You say you don't want to vote for Johnson to be PM but you would. You've ruled out voting for the party in favour of Remain/new vote. So you would vote for no deal and further austerity?

I totally agree with your views. Why on Earth doesn't Labour dump Corbyn and put Sir Keir Starmer in his place to quickly develop a moderate Labour party that aligns itself with the other Remain parties?

Easily and always the Tories. Looking back over critical economic data they have always been damaging. They have also successfully won the economic propaganda war by using Goebbels best trick of accusing the other side of your own worst faults. Take the recent 'historic' low that the pound has sunk to: last experienced in the 1980s after a sustained economic slide caused by Thatcher's policies. Historic indeed: tell us something crucial about how we should vote in future.

Flippin heck, what do you think JC is other than "desperately populist"?

I don't see much difference in the approach of Corbyn or Johnson, both trying desperately to appeal to their hard left and hard right wing supporters to stay/gain power. 

But given the choice between a strong majority Corbyn or Johnson led government for next 5 years, I would unwillingly go for Boris as less likely to totally **** up the economy. Damage limitation only.

I don't think the Conservative brand* survives the next full electoral cycle if they're seen to actively pursue no-deal except perhaps if they can pin it on the opposition 'who caused it by blocking the deal'. Five years out we'll have long forgotten the Conservatives hated 'the deal', it'll be Labour/LibDem's fault for voting it down and plunging us into chaos. If he goes that way there is I think a fair chance enough opposition MPs will reluctantly support the WA even if their party/whips don't that it passes. Win win really for Johnson, 'brexit means brexit' after all, he sold leavers one version then another wildly different, he can sell them whatever emerges.

*government by the privileged, for the privileged obviously will persist as an idea but I suspect there's significant attachment to the Conservative brand

I think any form of brexit will get Johnson back into No.10 though you're right, a no deal crash followed immediately by an election before the consequences emerge perfectly neutralises Farage, he's already long since lost his moderate conservative support so that's not much of a worry. I just think it's too high a price to pay strategically for the, admittedly tempting, short term tactical advantage over Farage, he'll have to own the chaos if he can't scapegoat the EU or opposition effectively enough. It also requires perfect timing!

We don't now have long to wait to get our answers.

jk

Because the membership doesn't want that. Fair enough really however exasperating it is at least democratic.

jk

Probably right, he's just not very good at it (or rather lacks the matey charisma to carry it off).

Have you seen the impact reports for a no deal Brexit? They show the economy suffers far more as a result than under a soft Brexit or no Brexit so Johnson already has a headstart in the turning-the-economy-to-shit race.

Which Labour policies, in particular do you think would be damaging and how?

Indirectly yes, because I can see no other option. Labour under Corbyn & Co is much more likely to cause greater damage to our country than Johnson & Co. Unfortunately voting that way would be seen as a mandate for no deal and austerity, but I can see no alternative other than wasting my vote, which is pointless and won't stop Corbyn.

This 'democracy' thing is getting us all into a lot of trouble now in its latest, Torily reinvented, hegemonous form – which has nothing at all to do with the very wise form of Parliamentary democracy that we took hundreds of years to develop and fought for ... and finally got right (in terms of first principles, at least, long before facts) as long ago as 1688. I think the term 'Glorious Revolution' is one of best and truest epithets in our political history. So many really creepy politicians now, mostly from highly privileged backgrounds, just don't seem to understand this. Or, if they do, they are among the most evil political manipulators we've ever had to deal with in our history – because they are simply wanting to wrench power away from 'the people'. And thereby, stuff democracy.

Corbyn's madness on the economy could start to be reversed in 5 years time but the Tory/ERG/Farage madness may take generations to recover from. If Scotland is more inclined to independence and even the possibility of a united Ireland becoming a bit greater, then some would say Tory madness is catastrophic. 

Obviously, some want a united Ireland and independent Scotland but it would be hugely ironic if these goals were achieved through the incompetence of the Consevative and Unionist Party rather than other methods from hunger strikes and bombs to reasoned debate.

A no deal Brexit will cause immeasurably more harm than Corbyns plans, and for a lot longer. The Tories have already shown an admirable approach to wrecking the economy under May and Cameron with all the pointless austerity.

The Tories. Sinister. Extremist. Corrupt. Dishonest. And driving the economy, liberal values and prosperity into the ground for political expediency. Corbyn is just incompetent and the Lib Dems don't have a policy or a principle between them.

What exactly do you think Corbyn is going to do that will damage the country more than a no deal Brexit?

I like that, because it looks very much like saying, 'Some would say a catastrophe is a catastrophe.' Brilliant use of the word 'some'.

I would question that but if you believe it, then for the sake of argument fine.

The thing is, with Scotland going SNP, and Tory remain constituencies going Lib Dem, Labour is never going to get to form a majority government, they would only govern a part of a coalition. Corbyn won't be in a position to implement his more controversial plans.

Voting for Johnson's no-deal scenario, in an attempt to stop something that isn't going to happen anyway isn't very sensible Trangia, and you've always struck me a a sensible person!

My edit may clarify what I had in mind. 

It’s a hard call but I vote Liberal so it’s not a choice I have to make

I'm completely the opposite. I've never voted Labour but will do (though while holding my nose!) If it stops  Johnston and no deal.

However bad 5 years of Corbyn is (though I don't expect him to last that long) it's better than a lifetime of a no deal brexit outside Europe.

I am no fan of austerity, but we have endured years of it, and the economy is starting to recover. A Corbyn Government will undo all that that pain has achieved, meaning that all those years were wasted. He would very rapidly bankrupt the country, putting us back by decades. And as I've already said, Corbyn's stance on Trident terrifies me.

A no deal Brexit is also a dreadful prospect, but I feel that it's effects are likely to be shorter lived than the damage a Corbyn government could wreck, given British business and enterprises' ability to adapt to new markets.

I don't like either prospects.

Labour has zero chance of winning an election anyway.

Watch this space...

I found this an interesting read on the longevity of the effects, amongst other things:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/ivan-rogers-the-realities-of-a-no-dea...

I fear another Tory government far far more than a Labour one. I'm not keen on Corbyn as the leader because I think he's a bit useless but I don't think there's much in the last Labour manifesto to be scared of - it's generally full of moderately left wing, social democratic policies that wouldn't be out of place in many successful European countries. Maybe higher taxes and more wealth distribution would slow economic growth a little but at least the investment would go towards trying to build a better and fairer society. The Tories, on the other hand, seem to be quite happy to take the risk of trashing the economy basically to stay in power. Even without Brexit I'd be far more scared of a party who's aim seems to be to push the UK down a small state, low tax and deregulatory route that I think is detrimental to our society and our environment.

You still haven't said which policies would be more damaging than No Deal.

Regarding other policies you may prefer that £6k per annum be given as a tax break to those earning over £80k rather than spent on services but there's no reason to believe that such a policy would benefit the economy.

Trident (well MAD really) terrifies me. While these weapons exist they will eventually be used and en masse, either in error, madness or revenge. Since I can't think of anything to balance against nuclear winter I'm of the opinion we're better off without.

I don't see they're remotely comparable.

jk

So is it the risk of Labour increasing borrowing that you're scared of? I'm curious then that you'd vote for the party that's currently putting out wild uncosted spending promises, whilst also promising to lower taxes... the Tories are doing an excellent job of making Labour look like the fiscally responsible ones at the moment. Even the FT seems to be taking the line that Labour are a lower risk to the economy than no deal.

Re Trident, why do you think we need a nuclear deterrent? It seems like a massive waste of money to me - we basically just do it to be taken seriously with the big boys at NATO. The world has moved on and our biggest threats come from cybercrime/mass hacking of infrastructure. I feel like if we get to the point where people are threatening to chuck nukes around we're already in too much trouble to fix it by having our own big guns.

N.B. I'm not particularly a Labour voter. In the past I've generally voted Lib Dem, predominantly because of their support for electoral reform, which I think is absolutely crucial to improving politics in the UK, though I've voted Labour at the last two elections because I've lived in a Labour/Tory marginal. I'm just curious about why policies that are regarded as fairly moderate in, say, one of the Scandinavian countries, are considered to be terrifyingly dangerous in the UK.

Unless they wake up, get rid of Jezza and get in Starmer for example.

Bit off topic. Are you talking about your current seat being marginal or is this before you moved? Our Tory MP is safe-as-houses?

I really don't understand what is behind this myth?

We won't just be hampered by our tarrifs with the EU, it will be with the rest of the world, as all our current trade deals are through the EU. We won't get any quick deals to sizable  new markets. Any sizeable market will use their clout to make sure the terms are favourable to them.

As Carolyn Fairbairn put's it the long term damage will be the "the slow puncture of the UK’s lost competitiveness".

https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/no-deal-brexit-is-a-tripwire-into-economic-...

Old constituency. I know there's no hope here - I've effectively disenfranchised myself by moving into a true blue area. It wouldn't be so bad if it was one of the more moderate Tories but Philip Davies is abhorrent!

No!

It will result in Multinational car manufacturers making their next new model in the EU rather than the UK, Airbus making it's next new wing manufacturing plant in the EU rather than supporting the UK plant.  The same goes for lots of other industries too  And there are a multitude of smaller UK engineering firms who rely on these UK based facilities

I think it wise to fear what the culmination of this drive to the extreme ends of the political spectrum is likely to bring. There is Trump, now Boris and several other politicians across the globe who have got in on what can only be described as jingoistic policies. The left's answer is to go further left and before you know it you have a similiar set of circumstances to what kicked off the Spanish revolution and the racist and facist policies of the 1930's across Europe.

Certainly by Swedish standards the policies Corbyn and McDonnell talk of would be considered far left. Sweden is far more caring capitalist, than socialist. The last PM in sweden who even spoke of embarking on far left socialist policies was assassinated (Olof Palme, never solved). 

Here's the view from those Marxist remoaners at The Spectator:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/ivan-rogers-the-realities-of-a-no-dea...

Which of Corbyn's far left policies specifically are you talking about? Nationalised water companies? Publicly owner power generation companies? Public ownership of rail companies? Increased tax to fund public services? Free university tuition? All of these things exist to a greater or lesser extent across the various Scandinavian countries...

There are private power companies, private rail operators, healthcare isn't free at the point of use, unemployment benefits are an insurance policy which only pays out for a few months, everyone pays more tax not just the rich with a zero rate tax threshold of less than £2k, there is no minimum wage.....

The policies which arguably make sweden more pleasant are related to the environment, social care, equality etc..  these correlate far more with lib Dem policy than anything new or old Labour has ever said.  

So which far left Corbyn policies were they again?

Re-nationalise pretty much everything? Or McDonnells latest of tenants forcibly taking ownership of property they rent... it's a worn argument. Do you really think Corbyn would stand on ticket of paying £15 per visit to your doctor, or £30/mth connection fee for your electric, or after 9mths jobless your unemployment benefit stops?

Bleak stuff and hard to disagree with.

jk

Do you think he should, do you think those are good policies?

jk

Energy and transport seem to be a public and private mix but there is much less of an ideological drive for liberalisation. Yes, stuff like unemployment benefits and NHS treatment are insurance backed but not US style (i.e. the state still pays for the majority of it) and the per capita health spend by the government is higher than in the UK. And even the basic unemployment insurance is far more generous than the equivalent jobseekers allowance in the UK. The fact that there is no minimum wage is interesting - I didn't know that - but luckily seems to be made up for by high unionisation rates.

I do agree with you that Labour's plan of funding their policies by taxing high earners is wrong - they should be taxing everyone more. But I still don't think that what Labour were promoting in their last manifesto could legitimately be described as 'far left', it just seems that way because of how far to the right the UK has swung over the last 40 years.

That would depend if you get the services you pay for. 

Health you pay per visit, but stuff like skin care and physio is private, you book direct without referral and usually wait a week at most, often less.

Electric you pay a connection fee, your useage, an energy tax, plus 25%vat but then it's pretty green (80%).

Etc. I've seen nothing in Corbyns personal performance over the past 40 years of being an MP to indicate he is capable of delivering anything at all. McDonnell though he's a little sharper, but arguably even further left. 

Interestingly that's probably the way it's likely to go here anyway. At the moment we basically pay for all of those things bundled up together as consumption and a standing charge but that's based on pretty old fashioned energy markets. An energy network based on renewables and nuclear has virtually no marginal cost to it, everything is infrastructure and network costs, so it makes more sense to change the way we charge people for their connection vs their consumption.

It's worth pointing out that there seems to be overall public support for nationalization of public transport, utilities and mail:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/05/19/nationalis...

So what actually are the bonkers far-left neo-Stalinist policies that do make him so totally unpalatable to the general public?

No, for you and I it might but for many it means not getting any services, good value or not which in turn makes our lives a little worse (starving sick people on the street) and theirs quite a bit more so.

And is that good for public health, does it entrench or reduce health inequality? Do you think any of that matters and assuming so which direction would you wish to move in?

So what? We pay for connection (standing charge) and taxes here too, who really gives a toss exactly how the bill breaks down, it's either affordable or it's not.

None of that really answers my question of course but then I didn't expect you to.

jk

We shoud fear anyone who seeks to polarise debate and foster division.

That may incude people asking divisive questions in online forums.

I missed this earlier.

So the Tories are running roughshod over the constitution, and that's a reason to be more afraid of Labour because they might?

You'll get dizzy spinning that hard!

And that's "far left"? You've not left much slack in there for things like communism, have you?

Wait, it gets better. Apparently, they've worked up their new NI plan and it's... the existing one with all the references to the backstop crossed out! I wish I was joking!

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1168543706472943616

The Tories as Labour are getting a bit away from the Tory Bliar mob and back to actual Labour social democracy just like the Scandies. 

Two parties in Britain have polarised people in the last decade through bitterly fought referendums. The tories and the SNP.

Two groups of nationalists feeding off one another.

I think the one positive thing that might come out of this desperate situation is Irish unification and Scotland becoming a fully independent country again. Both seem inevitable.

You seem to have an under informed view if Irish history and politics if you think Unification is inevitable.

Fat chance.

Never said it was far left did i? Sweden is more caring capitalist, everyone is expected to contribute, not just the wealthy. Corbyn and McDonnell, they are much further left and more socialist. 

It's just my opinion Kevin. Not so much based on history, but based on the changing demographic balance in the six counties , the diminishing attraction of staying within the UK and the mood music I'm picking up from both sides of the community when I'm in Northern Ireland. But as I say....Just my opinion.

I asked you what far left policies you were talking about.

You said nationalising everything and transferral of property to renters.

I said that they didn't seem very far left.

Now you've said you never said far left.

Can you see why I might be confused?

There is of course reason why Boris is"exploiting" the constitution and is widely supported in many quarters for doing so and that's because the precedent has been set.

Earlier in the year when Bercow was playing fast and loose with the constitution and defying centuries of convention (and being widely cheered by some remainers for doing so) I said then that this sets a precedent and that we should expect the same in response in due course.

Breaking the rules is great when its your side getting away with it but sause for the goose is sauce for the gander and now its the leavers turn.

I was referring to the other bits in your quote? I guess one persons left is another's middle. But given that Labour want to basically punish anyone who has made any money in life, owns an asset etc. I'd say that's far left. Forced purchase of private enterprises? Far left. Taking control of different markets? Far left. 

You don't think allowing tenants to buy the property they rent against the owners wishes is a little extreme? 

Thankfully they are so extreme even loyal Labour voters are losing faith in them. 

my edit

Re-nationalisation of former public assets is not far left. A lot less radical than selling them off in the first place. As for markets that depends on the market and the benefits gained from it.

Possibly. The housing crisis is getting extreme in places and maybe radical solutions need to be looked at.

Hmmm, the policies aren't the reason I'm not voting Labour, but their/Corbyn's performance and stance on Brexit.

I do think stuff like pay per use doctor or hospital visits work. It is a income stream that matches use. It makes people think if they actually need to visit and they could just ring a helpline or go to a pharmacy instead.

Even when you do ring to book you get a nurse not a receptionist, so there is an extra layer of triage. Urgent cases fast track, less critical they bump you to later in the day. 

But, it's widely accepted it works because everyone pays. It's equality, not the Labour idea of equality where you try and target only the successful rich elite. Don't get me wrong, the well off pay, the 62-63% rate kicks in on earnings over £55k, but the low paid are paying 32% as well on nearly all their earnings. 

The track record of a UK government investing long term in any public sector isn't great, the same with managing them. There are little short successes, but generally it's a case of under funded declining services. 

Build and build some more. But also but nice attractive well designed 3,4,5 storey apartments blocks. Make the land use really work fir you. End the obsession with naff quality detached brick housing. 

But they correlate. Exiting the eu, which he has never supported, will make it easier to implement many of their policies. 

I'm not backing Boris or the Tories, I think the mid ground, lib Dem-ish is the way to go. But some sort austerity had to happen, spending was heading out of control and the UK still isn't close to being in surplus. Plus what the UK calls austerity isn't anything like what the PIIGS nations have endured. It's just that the UK became accustomed to pissing good money up the wall in the so called boom years. Yes I know people have suffered, but look at Greece, or the youth unemployment rate around the Med. 

I've spent a fair bit of time North and South, as you imply there's a generally progressive upbeat both sides, but there's still far too many people who think the Battle of the Boyne happened a week ago last Thursday

Because of his extremist views? Did you read the Labour 2017 manifesto? Seemed reasonable to me.

How any one in their right mind would vote for the current shower of shite we have is just totally beyond me.

If you fear Labours radically far left policies then I'd advise you to look at other countries and also a few manifestos from past years for a sense of proportion.   Also id note Tory stewardship of the economy is not especially good. Austerity anyone? Industrial policy outside the M25?

  Plus if  Corbyn is that bad he'll be out in one election cycle.

Boris on the other hand will do a lot of damage that is going to take a long long time to fix. 

It's not 'equality because everyone pays', its equality for everyone that can pay. Not the same thing and when it comes to health excluding some is bad for all it makes public health issues harder to address, it make the excess sickness experienced by the poor harder to tackle, harder for them to bear more of a drag keeping them poor. £15 doesn't matter to you, or me. Lucky us. 

Jk

Conservatives. 

There is no chance of labour getting an outright majority under Jeremy Corbyn, so he will never have the parliamentary numbers to implement his most extreme views. If Labour ‘win’ he will need the support of The Lib Dem’s and the Nats. And I do wonder how, after the past three years, anyone can see the conservatives as the party of economic competence. 

To be honest, I don't see anything in corbyns polices as stated now that appear particularly extreme. Lots and lots of newspapers have trotted out (see what I did there? 😊) things he has said and done over the last fifty years which are particularly daft, but we all mature over time, and judging people by actions twenty years past appears a little missing the point and somewhat dredging the bottom of the barrel when it comes to scaremongering. I've listened to many of his recent (as in post labour leadership) material and it appears both moderate and reasonable. 

Boris is an immediate here and now problem. 

In short, I'm prepared to support corbyn and believe he's not a closet extremist, when compared with the out in your face extremist that currently occupies no 10.

P. S. I'd mention here that most documented labour polices would make me, personally, less well off, which I am entirely happy with as I consider it ethically unacceptable to make myself better off at the expense and deprivation of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. 

P. P. S. Last paragraph was added to answer the "bet you would change your tune if corbyn made you poorer" comments. 

Time to revisit this article, which I posted at the time:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2019/01/what-does-john-berc...

And maybe remember that Bercow was responding to earlier unparliamentary action by the Tories when they were found in contempt of Parliament.  

The FT are doing a week long focus on labour - some interesting stuff trailed today

Seems like a pretty flimsy argument to justify whatever you like but my point remains, either both sides play by the "rules" or neither side does.

Whichever side of the Brexit divide you sit on and whatever you think about overturning convention, you can't argue its only ok when your side does it.

If you are breadline / benefits level then you don't pay. If you accrue more than £150ish in a 12mth period it's also free. Similar for prescriptions. So there is a catchment system in place for the vulnerable. No one is excluded. 

For the rest us, want a bit of tlc for your man flu they probably won't even give you an appointment when you ring, if they do your ten mins of tlc will cost you £15.

I’m no left wing fanatic, in fact I’m the classic floating voter. However, I see the tories as an extremely serious threat to democracy , economy and society. Corbyn is a much less serious threat. Pity we don’t have a positive alternative, though.

I'm not sure on all of that, but if Brexit is pushed through by foul means then there is certainly lost credibility and the UK certainly can't complain about other countries dodgy elections or voting in the future. 

I suspect Boris doesn't receive advice from those around him well and just employs those who tell him what he wants to hear. Not a unique trait among party leaders though!

It's taken a fair bit of time and pain to bring the annual deficit down, a term of Corbyn could easily blow that, with only their promise that their socialist ideals will deliver growth to repay that debt in the distant future, despite there being no country in the world carrying out anything like Corbyn suggests successfully. A far more massive gamble than Brexit. Their policies aren't based on trying to help the worker, the poor, inequality but trying to harm, hurt or disadvantage those who have been successful and make money, who they despise. The very money that is indirectly allowing them and their union buddies to earn over £100k/yr (using the word earn in the lowest sense).

  This can't be true. I have had it confirmed by many remainers that nobody ever votes to be poorer......

A good reply.

The issue with Corbyn is that he needs to be moved on as he is imho tarnished with the era of May as a failed opposition leader during the past few years.

It is going to probably take an election for the Labour Party and Corbyn to realise this... and possibly we may have one shortly.

I

What do the out of work do for food and shelter when their benefits stop or if they haven't accrued enough credit? One of the key points you were pushing in your earlier argument is that people *are* excluded. So which is it?

It's been a while I guess since you used the NHS. You seem to have a pretty warped idea of how it works, how it's used and what people need.

jk

I don't suppose you'll find many on the breadline that knowingly would. Less of plenty is still plenty, less of just enough in tory Britain rapidly excludes you from society and threatens your life.

jk

If you don’t believe that there are masses of people accessing the NHS for spurious crap then you have a pretty warped idea of how it’s abused and what some people think they need.

To paraphrase David Cameron, Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - chaos and massive overspending with Boris Johnson, or just massive overspending with Jeremy Corbyn. 

You know this for a fact do you? Or is it just your prejudices showing again?

Which sectors of the NHS are you referring to? Do you work within the NHS?

One person's 'spurious crap' is, for example, another's untreated anxiety disorder. Frankly we want people seen and treated before they're properly sick, it keeps us all healthier, controls costs and prevents unnecessary suffering. Anyway, do you suppose the Swedish health service doesn't see it's share of frequent flyers and worried well?

Getting a doctor's appointment here generally already involves running the 111 triage gauntlet.

jk

Fairly widespread and yes.

Interesting. My wife is a doctor so I (unfortunatly) spend a lot of time with doctors (they seem to come in packs) and they they don't seem to think so but they are in cancer, respiratory and renal specialities generally so maybe it's more the GPs that get "spurious" stuff.

By the time a patient reaches specialist services other clinicians have assessed and triaged them.

There is a breadline payment, to keep folk from ending up on the streets, but it's so low it isn't something you really live on, if you want any quality of life at all. The system is designed to push people back to work, any work. In which they need to be contributing to the insurance based unemployment payment scheme for 12months before they qualify again. 

Same as any country, fast quality treatment, with positive outcomes. The debate is really how you fund it and the key factor for the UK is it needs to fund it more., in order to have the service most desire. 

But, you are missing the point. Up thread it was claimed that Corbyn and McDonnells policies are just like Scandinavia, I'd argue they are much further left or more socialist. 

Yes, on my recent trip to a walk in centre the triage staff were effective and necessary. A large chap with a sore knee was told to take painkillers and lose some weight. A young woman who wanted antibiotics was told to go home and rest, to get over her viral infection (they were sat either side of me in the waiting area and told their relative/friend what was said).

Anyway, too get the thread back on track.... Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings are arrogant shits, and will damage this country to satisfy their own ambitions. Corbyn will not be in a positions to do that, he won't get a majority and he doesn't have effective control of his MPs. There's been no time for the deselection Momentum has been planning, so Labour will go into this elections with mostly the MPs they have.

What do you think you get in the UK?

So what happens if you fall out of work before or within those 12 months, presumably the equivalent of UK universal credit (though actually sufficient for subsistence)? What you were trumpeting If I've understood correctly is actually a time limited period of higher rate of unemployment benefit dressed up as an insurance scheme to secure public buy-in, something which allows people to keep hold of their resources: home, family, car so they can return to rewarding work etc rather than falling immediately into a poverty trap as often happens here. An idea rather significantly to the left of current UK policy and anything Labour has yet to propose AKAIK.

Sure but direct payments, even token ones put off the most in need, the most vulnerable. We fail those people and in doing so we ultimately drive up what we pay. Whatever floats your boat though.

You're arguing existing Conservative health policy is to the left of Sweden's, not Labour's which makes me suspect the devil is actually in the details I'm having to slowly wheedle out of you. 

jk

It an insurance scheme, optional, perhaps an alternative to saving cash for a rainy day? Either way, the onus is on the individual taking responsibility for themselves, rather than big brother state looking after everything for you, with of course measures to at least try and catch those who slip through.

The breadline payments are arguably lower proportionally than the UK. I don't know of anyone using them long term it's just not viable. Plus if you turn down any work, any interview, even an unpaid placement etc.  they stop immediately, in typical passive aggressive Swedish style they'd get a polite letter in the post and it's all over. 

If you look at access to health, waiting times, longevity, infant mortality, cancer stats etc etc.. sweden is consistently in the top few across the eu. Something works well; whatever it is. What matters though is scale of funding. The UK doesn't want to pay more tax, doesn't want pay per use, doesn't want health insurance....   I'm not really sure how it thinks the health service will ever improve?

No. You are obsessing with the nhs and Tories. I repeat. Up thread someone said Labour's policies would be considered normal in Scandinavia. I say again, they would be considered more socialist or left wing. 

Unemployment benefit living is arguably (see what I did there) not viable in the UK, why do you think we have food-banks and the re-emergence of Victorian poverty diseases. You really do have quite a warped view of the UK.

Do you really believe that's anything to do with charging a nominal fee for access or, more likely in my opinion, to do with a less fragmented, less pared back approach to social security and health inequality in general?

Sweeping generalisation alert! Plenty of us are willing to pay more tax for a better social security system, plenty of us vote for it but we're disenfranchised by our rotten electoral system. Is it currently enough to win an election under the existing system? I guess if we ever get your nationalist bullshit out of our parliament we might find out but I don't hold out much hope, brexit is a metastasising tumour consuming our society, economy and now our democracy. Thanks for that.

You're saying Tory policy: free at the point of use (for now at least) NHS would be considered socialist or left wing. In what way is Labour's health policy materially different except in so much as they claim they will fund it better and might stop the asset stripping.

jk

So you'd rather have the tories in Government.

Fair enough, now we all know where you're coming from.

I didn't say they would all be found in one country but I'm really struggling with your view that Labour's policies are wildly out of line with what I can see elsewhere.

Norway has nationalised railways (in Sweden it's not nationalised but the main rail operator is state owned)

Sweden, Denmark & Norway all offer free university tuition

Sweden and Denmark have publicly or cooperatively owner water utilities

Norway and Denmark have rental price controls, Sweden and Denmark have protected tenancies. Rental regulations are weighted far more in favour of the tenant than in the UK.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden all offer unemployment benefits pegged to your previous salary (assuming you qualify) - our version of contribution based JSA is a derisory amount and runs out after 6 months. You say the basic amount in Sweden is very little but it's more than you get in the UK, and you won't get that at all if you have savings or your partner works.

Yeah, maybe Corbyn and McDonnell secretly desire to nationalise everything and send us all comrades off to work in community farms but it's not in their manifesto and they'd have a hard time getting it past parliament.

It still surprises how right wing the climbing community is. I find it bizarre.

I don't think it's too bad in the climbing community compared to the national trend. The policy discourse has shifted so far to the right in the UK that by modern standards every post-war Tory PM before Thatcher was pretty much a socialist.

You could find one in one country, one in another, that doesn't mean that all those very expensive policies would work in the UK without causing a truly massive annual deficit. 

Quite a lot of passenger is private, the public trains are getting old and less reliable. A vast amount of freight private too. Most stations are unmanned and or ownership out sourced. 

Hardly unusual. The UK is the exception charging, not the norm. Probably because Labour under Blair wanted to give everyone a free degree, realised it wasn't affordable so first introduced tuition fees. 

Don't precisely how the public and private splits, as like most rural people we pump and filter our own. 

Not really, tenancies tend to be expensive as you rent from a private association, with additional fees. There isn't much regulation at all and in places like Stockholm where demand is high there are problems with 2nd and 3rd hand contracts, where people sub let for profit and many tenants have to move every 6mths until they get a first hand contract. 

Most housing that the state rents out, to those on benefits, asylum seekers etc. Is privately owned and maintained under long term contracts. 

It's more than the UK, but then most things cost more. You pay a fixed percent of your income and regardless of how much you pay in, or your salary, the most they pay out is 80% of your income capped at 680kr/day and it decreases as time passes. 

Even claiming it can take a couple of months, especially if you can't work through illness. A friend who had just had a brain tumour removed and was terminal, still waited 2 months before she got any money. Joining the scheme and saving a buffer is normal. 

The difference here with the public sector is the government will invest in energy, rail, fibre etc.. that's why it works. But that also means the government here has no issue with adding a bit to tax to cover it. There are no false promises that everything will be great and you can pay less tax.

It's not much different in Denmark or Norway, look at theiir tax rates. They are paying for better services up front. They aren't driving themselves into debt with massive deficits and they aren't spending their oil and gas money either, which is being invested elsewhere for a rainy day. 

The bit which funds much of Sweden's state services is the additional tax take. What a person pays in income tax, the employer matches. So in essence the government gets at least 64% of what you earn,  over 100% for higher earners. Which of course means business costs are higher, the costs are passed on and the public pays these in the shops. Plus 25% vat.

Unlike Corbyns promise, nationalise everything, free this, higher that, only the richest 5% will pay more for it. Stuff of dreams.

Of course you are free to believe them. But as said, no other country in the world has managed to do what Labour promise. Look at Corbyns Venezuela that he often hailed a success.  

So it's not actually Labour's policies you have a problem with, just the fact that they believe it can be funded through higher taxes on certain sectors rather than higher taxes for everyone? I agree that their funding model is flawed, I think Labour would need to increase tax across the tax base to fund what they want to do but as a start I'm happy for tax increases to initially be targetted at the better off. It's worth bearing in mind that income disparities in the UK are greater than they are in Sweden, which perhaps distorts the public perception of where the majority of the tax burden should sit.

I think Labour know this as well but increasing tax is such a taboo in the UK that being honest about it probably means never being elected. We're idiotic in this country - we want first rate services for minimal outlay and no-one's prepared to tell the electorate honestly that they either need to pay more or get less.

Increasing taxes on the well off only raises a couple of billion, it is petty cash in terms of what you want the money spent on.It sounds good, but in reality just drops a few extra quid in the coffers.

If you want first rate services then the Swedish model will have to be adopted right across the board on everybody.

And as you say in your post, let us start with the well off first, which suggests that you are not prepared personally to accept that model.You want others to pay for it.

A lot of us would agree with one of your premises: that raising tax from the top 5% isn't sufficient for paying for the improvements in public services Labour want to deliver.

But you're trying to argue that Labour's position is more dangerous than BJ and no deal. This is completely ridiculous, because BJ is making spending commitments without raising taxes at all, while we suffer the economic damage of no deal Brexit. Of course that's worse - there's no serious argument that there's going to be magic growth in the aftermath of Brexit funding the NHS, Police, Schools, infrastructure Johnson's promising.

You just seem to be relying on some worn-out cliches about austerity bringing the economy back on track (really? and Brexit?) and this being thrown away by extremist socialism like Venezuela (which we can't see in the Labour manifesto, you give vacuous misrepresentations rather than referring to anything Labour actually want to do).

I'm not going to vote Labour, so you're not attacking my views or my loyalties. I just find what you're saying to be completely unconvincing because it's an argument entirely reliant on soggy cliches that don't match up to reality. It's absolute tripe.

Agreed, it's doing something that sounds good to a lot of people. However I don't think that's what they're relying on. However I'll have to go away and read up on where they really do intend to raise revenue and how much they intend to borrow before giving a better answer.

Can I just say (as I mentioned above) that I'm more of a floating voter than a Labour voter so I haven't specifically said I want their policies, just that they're not radical far left policies. And I would ideally like all of us to pay more in taxes but I think it needs to be a ratchet that is cranked up gradually, and there's likely to be more public acceptance if people see that the rich are paying their fair share as there are currently huge income inequalities.

How does that suggest anything of the sort? You have no idea what my financial position is.

the problem is that your first crank of the ratchet will make no significant impact on the nations finances because the very rich are a small proportion of the country's population so it would be ineffective tokenism.  The process would need to be simultaneous across a wider range of the population

This oft-repeated line gets on my tits quite badly, because it's a slur (or ad hom) that has no purpose other than to derail a discussion. It turns the discussion from one about the policy into defending one's personal integrity.

Saying "you only support high tax and spend that because you want more stuff for yourself (better services) while other people pay for them" is accusing that person of some kind of moral transgression. It's not an argument about the policy, it's just, "saying that makes you bad, and because you're bad, what you're saying must be wrong". It's nonsense.

It's invalid as an argument not only because it's an ad hom (I might be a terrible person, but so what, the policy still might deliver better outcomes than the alternative), but also because it's so often false. People who want higher taxes are very often people like me who are perfectly happy to pay higher taxes, and who won't take a great deal from the services because we're working, we're healthy, we don't commit crimes, etc. And those who don't earn much and would struggle to pay higher taxes are perfectly within their rights to say that those better off should pay more - there's nothing immoral about that.

There are a lot of bad arguments out there, but an ad hom which is false anyway, is pretty much the most useless of the lot. Next time you think about using it, maybe stop yourself?

Nail on the head .. 

Right now parties are probably drafting manifestos in case they are needed and they'll all be promising someone else will pay, with the exception of the lib dems who'll offer a modest tax increase and be punished for it. 

We might see if the cliches are worn or soggy, if there is an election and Labour have a manifesto. 

I'm basing my understanding on the 2017 manifesto, which doesn't match your soggy and worn out cliches.

Are you saying that what you predict will be in a 2019 manifesto will be different, in such a way that you are proved right?

No. I'm no mind reader. We'll just have to wait and see what they promise. 

But you're sure it will be more dangerous than Johnson's unfunded spending commitments which will be even less affordable after a no deal brexit?

Really?

You can't envision the climbing community as polar opposites when climbing is so tribal?

Trad vs Sport vs Bouldering vs Grit vs Top-roping.

Nothing in economics other than historical events can be 'sure'. 

But it's taken 9 years of so called austerity, people have suffered, to lower the national deficit to where it is. I think one term of Corbyn could blow that and the UK would be back to square one. All that suffering for nothing. 

Not forgetting also Corbyn is no remainer, he's just fence sitting to avoid losing voters. 

Pointless abseiling off routes vs walking round in 5mins.

Or the peaks classic HVS route, 3PS.

We don't know whether or not this is true - no counterfactual. A different set of policies may have speeded up the recovery and reduced the deficit further than the Tories managed with their viciously self-serving programme of spending cuts. They demonised those on benefits, including the disabled as "scroungers", making cuts there while preserving the benefits old people who vote Tory get. Painting this programme of cuts as some necessity that we all, as a country went through to achieve the good that is a reduced national deficit, is frankly bollocks. I never suffered, I was fine, and yet I could afford to contribute more to the coffers rather than taking away some poor bastard's DLA.

I don't buy the premise that the Tory cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit. It could have been achieved in a thousand different ways, many of which could have been more successful. We don't know.

You're trying to argue that Labours policies are more dangerous that Johnson's (there is no Tory party any more, haha!). You're not getting anywhere, because what BJ is proposing is evidently *more* economically damaging that what Labour propose (based on the last manifesto). 

I think it was for nothing anyway. And further, I think that the suffering of the job losses of all those people whose livelihoods rely on trade with the EU; and the reduction in tax revenue and spending cuts that will happen as a result - given that we know where the Tories like to cut, present a more serious threat than the increasing deficit you think a Labour government would incur.

You haven't given any reason for me to think that Labour spending would cause more harm than Johnson's incongruous mish-mash of self-serving bollocks that's clearly nothing more than a plan to drive the country into the dirt in order to keep him in power as Nigel Farage's body double. Especially when Labour are acutely aware than they need to demonstrate fiscal responsibility given the soggy and worn out cliches that are used in place of counter arguments to their policies. 

I'm not an economist, but that never stopped anybody on the internet from posting garbage - so what if Corbyn's policy of borrow to invest results in sustained economic growth, that reduces the welfare bill while at the same time increasing the tax take?

But ^this^ is the truth. Corbyn wants brexit and he wants it to break the Tories

Any evidence of similar policies to Corbyns delivering growth and reducing national debt etc.. in any other countries? It's just speculation. A gamble. 

No he's been anti EU his entire career. He isn't against Brexit. 

Looking at the current likes/dislikes on the second post you it's the opposite?  - 33 Boris and 41 in favour of Jeremy, whereas I thought Boris was meant to be twice as popular as Jeremy amongst the electorate?

So is a programme of austerity - there's no answer about whether austerity harms growth and so militates against deficit reduction. We simply don't know - the IMF have said both are ways round are true in the last few years I think...

Without wishing to get into an interminable argument over exactly what you do and don't mean by similar I'd suggest a look at Portugal. Modest per capita growth but good government needs to be about more than stoking GDP figures. 

Jk

No .Most people have not bothered to research the cost and what the implications are for all the things they want . Most people barely understand what tax is raised , who pays for it and so on. 

Me: Corbyn wants brexit

You: No, he's been anti EU his entire career

Me: ?

There are very few people in the country who are remotely able to cost policies and calculate how this translates into tax rises. You're trying to place an impossible and irrelevant burden on your opponents as a defence your bad, ad hom argument.

There are two broad philosophies which use the status quo as a baseline: the right-wing position that we should reduce taxes and spending on public services, or that we should increase spending and raise taxes compared to now. It's absolutely reasonable to hold the latter position without costing out specific policies - but of course it's useful to say that the increase in spending is needed to deal with the increasing cost of health and social care, reverse cuts to education, restore welfare for the disabled, etc. I want those things, I think they should be funded by higher taxes, and I don't have to do the accounting to make that position valid. I can just look at other countries with higher taxes, better services, less inequality and better QOL outcomes to justify the position, although this isn't proof that the same will work in the UK.

Methinks you’ve read too many attention grabbing headlines without the effort of fact checking and research. 

Well currently the right wing policy is to reduce tax AND increase spending. Completely irresponsible.

As far as I can tell Corbyn policy is to increase tax and increase spending.

Tory policy, however, is to reduce tax and also increase spending.

Seems to me that in relative terms Corbyn has the  less damaging policy.

IMO what we would need at this point would be to reduce spending AND  increase taxes. We should basically do to ourselves what the Troika forced Greece to do. 

As an election-winning strategy, I think that needs a little more work. 

(You may be right, but it's inconceivable that any party would go into a general election with that in their manifesto.)

The fact that the Tories have basically doused the economy with petrol and are about to set a flame to it with a rolled up copy of the Good Friday Agreement but people are _still_ fretting about some unspecified disaster that might occur if Labour got into power is... a testament to the power of propaganda, I guess. The Tories really got their money's worth when they quietly ignored most of the Levenson's recommendations.

Ho, I completely agree, that’s not going to happen, no democratic government with a view to be elected or re-elected would want to go with a policy of blood sweat and tears, however much needed it is.

So the only way it can end is badly, I’m afraid. There is a lot more debt and leverage in the system than there was in 2007, but this time there is virtually no fiscal or monetary headroom. The next crisis will be the mother of all crisis.

Fascist dictatorship or ineffective idiot? I think I'll take my chances with the idiot, and I'll be voting Labour for the first time in my life in the election that is almost certainly about to happen.

There is no greater risk to the future of our country than a government that has no integrity and has shown itself to be very willing to circumvent the fundamental concepts of our democracy in order to force its policies on the country. This goes beyond party politics; Boris Johnson and his government are an affront to democracy.

Here's Mr Pie's take on the subject.

As always, not work safe.

youtube.com/watch?v=9Vha59srSks&