Does May want to win?

[Clinton]

For a look at how strawberries are grown

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...coming-food-crisis-seasonal-migrant-labour-eu

When it comes to Brexit the Guardian is a right joke.

If any banker makes the smallest sound about possibly moving half a dozen staff outside of the UK the Guardian's headlines scream about how all the jobs are leaving the UK.

But when some of the biggest banks and multinationals announced huge investments in the UK, big job creation plans involving thousands of new jobs etc. or made unambiguous statements that they are backing Britain post-Brexit and that they are expanding here irrespective of what deal May gets out of the EU .... the Guardian is very silent.

In the early days of the pound's post-referendum decline the Guardian kept running scare stories about how bad things were going to be and how high inflation was going to get. They dismissed the FTSE's rise by recalculating FTSE growth in USD. Now that the pound has recovered half the value it lost - and the FTSE has reached a new all time high - the Guardian has gone all quiet about GBP & FTSE.

Just like they bury any good news about the economy doing well, about IMF and the like revising their predictions for Britain growth etc etc.

If anybody is getting their Brexit news from the Guardian I'm not surprised you're down in the dumps about the country going down the pan. My advice for you - block that stupid site!

A couple of weeks ago in my M&A blog I posted an industry update which kind of sums up my view of the Guardian:

First up is The Telegraph, who claim M&A activity is going to be “rampant”. The Scotsman says "there are good times ahead".

Out-Law adds that M&A is off to a "blistering pace". There's also a lot of hiring going on - M&A bankers seem to be in big demand.

The Guardian says that Brexit was a huge mistake, dammit. All the jobs are going to leave the UK, businesses are going to relocate to Europe, the economy is going to crash, the sky is going to fall on our heads and Kim Kardashian is going to take up UK residence. So go back and re-run that bloody Referendum!

 

[Mr D]

The pollsters did get it wrong in 2015...

Perhaps we are looking at a much bigger Conservative majority than the polls indicate. Or perhaps the Greens will form a government.

 

[sirearl]

For a look at how strawberries are grown

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...coming-food-crisis-seasonal-migrant-labour-eu

Not like the Darling Buds of May is it?

Pretty sure most Brits would be happy to pick strawberries for the equivelant of 2K a week.

 

[Ian J]

Perhaps we are looking at a much bigger Conservative majority than the polls indicate. Or perhaps the Greens will form a government.

Now you're just being silly. The Greens will only win Brighton as usual and that's just because of the huge concentration of oddballs that live there including my daughter who is an active campaigner for them

 

[Mr D]

Ian J - silly or not, every party that has started up that has ended up in government did so by increasing its number of MPs. Polls can be wrong, they can be very wrong.
I'm no fan of the Greens. They get in I get out of the country.

 

[Ian J]

I'm no fan of the Greens. They get in I get out of the country.

I don't blame you. They have run Brighton Council for a number of years and were responsible for turning Brighton into one huge rubbish tip as all the refuse workers went on strike for quite a while.

 

[Mr D]

Hmmm... must be 10 years or more since our local rubbish collectors went on strike. Back when they were employed by the council.
Since contracted out, no strikes. Don't know if the private sector is the cause of there being no strikes now but its nice to put bins out and get rubbish collected...

 

[Newchodge]

You really could not make this up. Apparently May is about to announce a change to the dementia tax policy. STRONG and STABLE? And she accuses the Labour party of chaos.

 

[Newchodge]

OK, as you were. The change is that part of the consultation that will take place AFTER the election will include consideration of a cap.

In other words their manifesto is even more meaningless than it was yesterday.

 

[Mr D]

All manifestos are meaningless. Its why we have jokes about politicians keeping campaign promises.

Usually government does stuff that wasn't in manifesto and ignores some of what they promised in the manifesto.

 

[Newchodge]

All manifestos are meaningless. Its why we have jokes about politicians keeping campaign promises.

Usually government does stuff that wasn't in manifesto and ignores some of what they promised in the manifesto.

The Labour party has produced a manifesto that is fully costed and detailed. You may not agree with the costings, you may argue with the viability of the tax plans. But you can see exactly what they are proposing and decide whether you agree with their proposals.

The tory manifesto is very light on fact and contains pages of waffle about their aspirations. Nothing is costed and no detail is included. For example: some pensioners will lose their winter fuel allowance. But no one knows whether they personally will lose it, whether there will be a taper, so someone £1 per month over the entitlement level will get half the allowance. There is no detail on which to base a decision.

Similarly with the dementia tax. It was clear yesterday that if someone needed care that cost £50,000 per year for 10 years, and they had assets worth £600,000, they would end up leaving only £100,000 to their heirs. Now no one has the faintest idea what the proposal means to them.

Complete and utter chaos and very clearly not strong or stable. In fact obviously weak and wobbly.

 

[Clodbuster]

Newchodge, if you believe all Labours promises you are living in cloud cookoo land, promise after promise - lambaste the rich yet when the suggestion that the rich pay for their own winter fuel Labour turn and become the rich backers - numbties.

Where will all this money come from? The rich already filter large amounts of their money out of Tax and higher rates will only encourage that. All they are promising is to max out the nations credit cards again and leave in to the next conservatives to try and balance the books again.

What I don't understand is how it is the psyche of the British public that the children have no obligation to look after their parents. They wiped your bum when you were incapable - it is now your turn to reciprocate.

 

[Newchodge]

Newchodge, if you believe all Labours promises you are living in cloud cookoo land,

I didn't say that I believe all their promises. I said that their manifesto is detailed and costed, compared with the uncosted fluff of the conservative manifesto.

 

[Paul Norman]

I didn't say that I believe all their promises. I said that their manifesto is detailed and costed, compared with the uncosted fluff of the conservative manifesto.

Yes. This. Obviously, we do not believe all the Labour promises. And neither, I hope, does anyone believe any of the Tory promises. Please tell me no-one does.

And, indeed, I am not sure a manifesto should be seen as a contract. I don't want my government being bound by a campaign document, when 3 years down the road something has totally changed.

However, I do believe the strong indication of direction given by the two main parties.

 

[Ian J]

What I don't understand is how it is the psyche of the British public that the children have no obligation to look after their parents. They wiped your bum when you were incapable - it is now your turn to reciprocate.

That's the times we live in I'm afraid. When I was young each town had an "old people's home" now there seems to be one at the end of each street.

 

[Newchodge]

Over the last 40 odd years women have gone out to work on a much greater scale than in the years before. The elderly were previously looked after by their daughters or daughters in law. They are not available to do this because hey are in employment.

In addition, when I was a child my grandmother was ancient when she was my age and dead 5 years later. People live very much longer now than they did, but they also live with complex needs.

Do you think a 75 year old daughter should be caring for her 99 year old mother who has dementia?

 

[Clodbuster]

Do you think a 75 year old daughter should be caring for her 99 year old mother who has dementia?

Yes

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Over the last 40 odd years women have gone out to work on a much greater scale than in the years before. The elderly were previously looked after by their daughters or daughters in law. They are not available to do this because hey are in employment.

In addition, when I was a child my grandmother was ancient when she was my age and dead 5 years later. People live very much longer now than they did, but they also live with complex needs.

Do you think a 75 year old daughter should be caring for her 99 year old mother who has dementia?

Spot on.

Times have changed.

With the ageing population, many older retirees now have sons and daughters who are retirees themselves. What happens then? Do the grandchildren (most likely in full-time work) have to care for their parents and grandparents? Do they sacrifice careers and/or families of their own?

And for the record, many people do this by becoming full-time carers for loved ones. But to survive, they need welfare, including carer's allowance. Any money saved goes straight back out elsewhere.

Plus, care needs are changing. Take dementia. It's significantly more common than it was 50 years ago because people are living much longer. Back then, most people didn't live long enough to reach an age where dementia is most likely to occur. Now they do.

But one of the greatest issues of all is that some people simply can't be trusted. Some may not want to care for their elderly parents full-time, and even if they were forced to do so, there's nothing to force them to provide sufficient quality of care.

Ultimately, in many cases, those who suffer are the elderly people themselves.

The worker-to-retiree ratio is also one of the greatest threats facing economies across the world. Japan is being hit hard by it already. Yes, such a system may save on social care costs, but that would be a drop in the ocean if millions of younger workers had to sacrifice work to provide care.

This is already going to be a serious problem over the next 50 years. Adding this into the mix would rapidly accelerate that and pose a grave danger to the economy itself.

 

[Newchodge]

Yes

OK, who do you suggest should care for me? I have no children, I have no nephews or nieces (although my husband does have 2 nieces and 2 nephews, one of whom needs care himself because of autism).

Should I just leave the world when I cannot care for myself?

 

[STDFR33]

Should I just leave the world when I cannot care for myself?

The laws says you can't do that.

You must suffer until you croak it.

 

[Ian J]

OK, who do you suggest should care for me? I have no children, I have no nephews or nieces (although my husband does have 2 nieces and 2 nephews, one of whom needs care himself because of autism).

Should I just leave the world when I cannot care for myself?

I'm not sure quite how serious Clodbuster's response was but originally the care homes were occupied by people that didn't have family to care for them and your original comment about whether a 75 year old should be looking after her 99 year old mother with dementia was a bit extreme as you could have asked the same question about a 50 year old woman looking after her 75 year old mother instead.

 

[Xtm_Mike]

May WILL win. She has won.

I live(d) in a strong Labour area. All of my family and friends family are Labour voters. Not this time... Labour's manifesto might tick all the boxes but there is too much division in their party, trust and faith in the party is at an all-time low. Most older Labour voters I have spoken to do not believe JC is the right man to continue our Brexit negotiations.

I think Brexit is the biggest driving force for swaying votes, I live in one of the biggest for Brexit areas, May is seen as the best person to take this forward so she is getting the Labour votes.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The UK is supposed to be a very rich country but our governments do not like spending money on those in need.

I have visited a couple of French friends over the years when they went into retirement homes. One had Alzeimers sp. In both cases the standard of care was exemplary. I have also visited residents of English care homes which are sad in comparison.

Why cannot we do as well as our closest neighbours?

 

[Newchodge]

May WILL win. She has won.

I live(d) in a strong Labour area. All of my family and friends family are Labour voters. Not this time... Labour's manifesto might tick all the boxes but there is too much division in their party, trust and faith in the party is at an all-time low. Most older Labour voters I have spoken to do not believe JC is the right man to continue our Brexit negotiations.

I think Brexit is the biggest driving force for swaying votes, I live in one of the biggest for Brexit areas, May is seen as the best person to take this forward so she is getting the Labour votes.

I don't believe you. How can any labour voter look at the behaviour of the last government and vote for them? And how can anyone, having seen the complete lack of ability of May, especially over the last 4 days, see her as a good Brexit negotiator. She can't negotiate her way out of a paper bag.

 

[Ian J]

I don't believe you. How can any labour voter look at the behaviour of the last government and vote for them?

If you watch The Daily Politics they have been going round various Labour strongholds asking voters about their intentions and many are saying that whilst they are traditional Labour voters they just cannot vote for Jeremy Corbyn

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Manifestos are far from meaningless – at least while we still have an upper house, one that follows convention.


Is it the Sewell convention? That the House of Lords will not vote down any pledge explicitly made in a manifesto. But they can & will, when it sees fit, obstruct any other legislation that wasn’t mentioned in the manifesto?


As for whether this is a u-turn today, Sir David Butler seems to think it is: https://twitter.com/SirDavidButler/status/866643815708463104 (Sir David Butler has some experience of elections, having followed them for 67 years now, and is the inventor of the “swingometer”).


Edit: Beg your pardons, it appears to be the "Salisbury convention" - the Sewell convention is something to do with devolution.


Karl Limpert

 

[Newchodge]

If you watch The Daily Politics they have been going round various Labour strongholds asking voters about their intentions and many are saying that whilst they are traditional Labour voters they just cannot vote for Jeremy Corbyn

Is the Daily Politics shown on the BBC? That bastion of even handedness, who reported today, immediately after the May fiasco, that the Labour party has confirmed that they will suspend university fees from the 2017 intake, and then stated: 'but Jeremy Corbyn has refused to condemn the IRA'. When actually he stated over and over again tyat he condemned all bombing. No mention of that from the Biased Broadcasting C**********s

 

[Xtm_Mike]

I don't believe you. How can any labour voter look at the behaviour of the last government and vote for them? And how can anyone, having seen the complete lack of ability of May, especially over the last 4 days, see her as a good Brexit negotiator. She can't negotiate her way out of a paper bag.

I live in Hartlepool. One of the strongest Brexit supporting towns, right in the thick of the North East where Brexit support is strong. We are Labour voters.

I'm not very political but I like to do my homework when voting, I'm still quite young so I like to speak to friends and family my age, plus the older and younger generation as well as read the manifesto's myself. I am leaning towards a Labour vote but let me tell you, I am in a minority.

While most I speak to agree that Labour's manifesto sounds promising, after all, it's fully costed... this time around it is not the manifesto that is motivating voters. The motivation is Brexit and with the conflict within the Labour party, people just don't see them as the party to get us the best deal.

May knows what she is doing as she is expecting Brexit voters to vote for her in the election.

Ian is spot on, the Labour voter's don't have faith in JC.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone but this mindset is far more widespread than you think, Labour doesn't have a chance in this.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

May WILL win. She has won.

I live(d) in a strong Labour area. All of my family and friends family are Labour voters. Not this time... Labour's manifesto might tick all the boxes but there is too much division in their party, trust and faith in the party is at an all-time low. Most older Labour voters I have spoken to do not believe JC is the right man to continue our Brexit negotiations.

I think Brexit is the biggest driving force for swaying votes, I live in one of the biggest for Brexit areas, May is seen as the best person to take this forward so she is getting the Labour votes.

I find the whole thing insane.

Do people not realise that leaving the EU isn't going to make that much of a difference at all?

In fact, it's almost certain to be worse at first, and then we'll end up back to square one if we're lucky.

It's all Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. It seems to take priority over everything like it's some kind of magic salvation for all the UK's woes.

I'm being conservative in my view that we will manage post-Brexit. There won't be any tremendous catastrophe. But why does it still seem to take priority over the domestic economy, the NHS, public services and education?

This has been built up to the point where Brexit is seen as the final step before the UK can enter nirvana, like all the major problems people have - from the rich to the poor - will melt away.

And the sad thing is that many people just can't see the dangers coming. The Conservatives are keen to privatise the NHS, and many countries will be eager to get their teeth into the UK healthcare industry. Once we leave the EU and set ourselves as "open for business", each free-trade agreement we dish out will take a slice of the NHS along with it. It's ripe for picking.

And the most mind-boggling point of all? Corbyn is just as - if not more - eurosceptic than May.

Corbyn voted to leave the EEC in 1975. He also criticised the Maastricht Treaty and voted against the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty, Mr Corbyn said, "takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment throughout the European Community".

Meanwhile, even though May is far from a europhile, she backed the remain campaign and openly defended EU membership on multiple occasions. Corbyn's negative views of the EU are also much more aligned with the typical leave voter on everything other than immigration.

How May has managed to convince people that she's the best choice to deliver a clean cut for Brexit, I will never know. With her conservative emphasis on business, she's far more likely to compromise to secure favourable trade terms.

Personally, I think that's the right thing to do. But if people like that, why did they vote leave in the first place?

 

[Mr D]

OK, who do you suggest should care for me? I have no children, I have no nephews or nieces (although my husband does have 2 nieces and 2 nephews, one of whom needs care himself because of autism).

Should I just leave the world when I cannot care for myself?

Its common for someone else to look after those who cannot. Often paid for by the state.

Currently, and in the future based on the Tory manifesto, its either the person paying themselves for care. Or the state paying for it.
I've had several elderly relatives go into long term care and assets paid for it - late 1990s and early 2000s. Difference under Tory proposals? More estate left to be left to others...

 

[Mr D]

Do you think a 75 year old daughter should be caring for her 99 year old mother who has dementia?

Who better?
Strangers who may be simply doing a job and moving on to next client on their list - and who may miss a patient if running late? Or family?
Wife and I have cared for her late father, towards the end he needed a lot of care. Social worker at the hospital insisted on getting carers in 4 times a day, payable by the state of course, to feed, clothe, bath him etc.
Which the nursing staff bullied him into.

He ended up with me and the wife still caring for him, quite capable of doing most things himself. And I was always around to call an ambulance.

Left to the social worker he'd have had 2 hours plus of care a day from strangers payable by the state. Rather than better care by us, including the wife who had been doing it 20 plus years.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Is the Daily Politics shown on the BBC? That bastion of even handedness...

A typical complaint of the BBC, oddly from all sides of the political spectrum!


In about 30 minutes from now, Andrew Neil will interview Theresa May, and no doubt cover today’s U-turn. She’ll deny it was a U-turn. Brillo will quote various ministers’ statements of the last four days, present the evidence that it’s a U-turn, and still the PM will deny it.

Eventually he’ll give up – unlike Paxman, Neil knows not to whip a dead horse, knows that the case (and any uncredible denial), is not worth pursuing all evening – leaving the facts to hang there, for the viewers to decide, draw their own conclusions.


And on social media, he’ll get slated for going easy on May….



Later in the week, Andrew Neil will interview all other major party leaders, and challenge them all with equally difficult & awkward questions. And again he’ll push his questions a few times, with facts & quotes, but will eventually (normally after about asking a question 3 or 4 times) drop that line of questioning, leaving the lack of a reply for viewers to draw their own conclusions.



… and all the opposing parties will slate him for going easy on said interviewee…


And the cycle goes on. And party leaders & others will attend other broadcasters, all who are equally un/friendly to them, give only one party a tough time, and others will complain of even-handedness….



Karl Limpert

 

[Mr D]

If you watch The Daily Politics they have been going round various Labour strongholds asking voters about their intentions and many are saying that whilst they are traditional Labour voters they just cannot vote for Jeremy Corbyn

They are not being asked to vote for JC. They vote for their local candidate in most areas.
May get some right idiot parachuted in by the national party rather than decided on by the local party.
Some will vote party regardless. Some will vote the person. Some will vote the manifesto.
OK, I like one portion of Lib Dem manifesto but I don't get to decide what will be implemented from each party...

So far have only met one candidate around here, and that's only because of them being MP.

 

[quikshop]

OK, I like one portion of Lib Dem manifesto but I don't get to decide what will be implemented from each party..

And therein lies the real problem with our democracy, it is not proportionally representative. If the House of Commons reflected the actual vote across the Country rather than first past the post, we would get more liberal policies, more green environmental influence, and yes a few years ago we would of have 50+ UKIP MPs... a case of be careful what you wish for, but still better than the archaic system we're voting under today.

 

[Mr D]

Perhaps the voters prefer our current system. Certainly when they had the opportunity to change it they voted overwhelmingly to stick with the system we have. Has anyone ever looked at why they voted the way they did?
As someone who doesn't particularly want more green environmental influence (I pay enough already!) I'm glad we don't have PR.

 

[Clodbuster]

it is not proportionally representative.

This simply ends up with unstable government by coalition and committee management by consensus never works.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And therein lies the real problem with our democracy, it is not proportionally representative. If the House of Commons reflected the actual vote across the Country rather than first past the post, we would get more liberal policies, more green environmental influence, and yes a few years ago we would of have 50+ UKIP MPs... a case of be careful what you wish for, but still better than the archaic system we're voting under today.

I agree.

I'm certainly not a fan of UKIP by any stretch of the imagination, but something is wrong with the system if they can win 3.8million votes (12.7% of the vote share) and end up with only one MP.

The votes per MP really says a lot. Take 2015, for example:

Conservatives - 34,200 votes per MP
Labour - 40,250 votes per MP
SNP - 25,964 votes per MP
Lib Dems - 300,000 votes per MP
Greens - 1,157,000 votes per MP
UKIP - 3,881,000 votes per MP

My biggest gripe is that the more choice we have, the easier it is for one party to consolidate power. The left is essentially penalised as there are a lot more parties representing that side of the spectrum.

This issue would be the case in almost any political model, but it's amplified considerably with the system we use today.

If all the left-leaning parties combined together, they would be far more effective.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Perhaps the voters prefer our current system. Certainly when they had the opportunity to change it they voted overwhelmingly to stick with the system we have. Has anyone ever looked at why they voted the way they did?
As someone who doesn't particularly want more green environmental influence (I pay enough already!) I'm glad we don't have PR.

It was a dreadful campaign. Lots of lies, smears and points completely unrelated to the effectiveness of the system itself.

But your last sentence touches on another issue:

As someone who doesn't particularly want more green environmental influence (I pay enough already!) I'm glad we don't have PR

A lot of people voted based on how the system would impact their personal political preferences. Those who saw their party of choice in a safer position with the current system voted No, whereas those who felt their party struggled with the current system voted Yes.

It was about how the systems could impact the policies and influences of the future. It had little to do with the fairness and democratic values of either system.

Another problem was the choice of AV. It's certainly not perfect either. I'd much prefer a traditional two-round system. If no MP candidate receives more than a certain percentage of votes, the top two go into a second round run-off where the majority vote wins.

I think that would be too much voting for us Brits, though. We seem to get fatigued by it quite easily.

 

[Newchodge]

It was a dreadful campaign. Lots of lies, smears and points completely unrelated to the effectiveness of the system itself.

It was also at a time when the Lib Dems had covered themselves in s**t by their behaviour in the coalition. A lot of people voted to protest at the Lib Dems.

 

[Cobby]

Newchodge, if you believe all Labours promises you are living in cloud cookoo land, promise after promise - lambaste the rich yet when the suggestion that the rich pay for their own winter fuel Labour turn and become the rich backers - numbties.

It turns out their reasoning is the same as my own concern - is instituting a means test more expensive and where is the threshhold? Getting the wealthy to pay more is a fair system and one that's already in place? Perhaps it's not the best system, but you're misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

Where will all this money come from? The rich already filter large amounts of their money out of Tax and higher rates will only encourage that. All they are promising is to max out the nations credit cards again and leave in to the next conservatives to try and balance the books again

That's what you believe will happen? Cool, thanks for your opinion. They already costed their manifesto and, when I read it, I don't recall "huge increase in borrowing" being on the list.