Brexit negotiations

[thetiger2015]

I don't know why so many people are having trouble reading the national mood or understanding the most voters want out!

What will it take for diehard Remainers to accept the truth that's staring them in the face and keeps whacking them over the head now and again for good measure?

Because the 'voters want out' thing breaks down a bit when you say 'Oh, but there are different versions of Brexit..didn't anyone know?'

'No Deal', 'Oven Ready', 11 months of negotiations, potential for further delays at the end of 2020. From what I understand, 'most voters want Brexit' as in...out...all out...completely out, out OUT! They don't realise there's still going to be a period of negotiation. Many think that we're leaving on the 31st and are manning the fishing boats ready to re-take the North Sea.

The 31st is just the start of some long, drawn out saga and we'll probably be here next year, talking about the same stuff. Boris might even be kicked out by then, if he starts to fall apart at the seams under all the promises he's made. Then we're back to square one.

That's another reason why Remainers don't quite understand the Brexit stuff. It seems like so much hassle and we still might not get anywhere because there are so many versions.

 

[Clodbuster]

Uhhh, no.

Let's count the votes:

I knew it would not take long for someone to try and spin the figures. Labour are also a "leave" party - they simply wanted their own deal and Corbyn has been anti EU for years but would not say so recently.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I knew it would not take long for someone to try and spin the figures. Labour are also a "leave" party - they simply wanted their own deal and Corbyn has been anti EU for years but would not say so recently.

Try to spin the figures?

14.6m voted for parties trying to "Get Brexit done". 16.2m voted for parties either promising a second referendum with the option to remain, or willing to cancel Brexit altogether.

And this matches up almost identically with the EURef2 poll of polls: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls-2/

There is certainly no indication whatsoever that the majority wanting to leave the EU has increased since 2016, which is the point Clinton made that I was disagreeing with. If anything, all available data suggests that remain is now slightly ahead of leave.

Alas, we'll now never know for sure.

 

[Mr D]

Try to spin the figures?

14.6m voted for parties trying to "Get Brexit done". 16.2m voted for parties either promising a second referendum with the option to remain, or willing to cancel Brexit altogether.

And this matches up almost identically with the EURef2 poll of polls: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls-2/

There is certainly no indication whatsoever that the majority wanting to leave the EU has increased since 2016, which is the point Clinton made that I was disagreeing with. If anything, all available data suggests that remain is now slightly ahead of leave.

Alas, we'll now never know for sure.

So we know what 14.6m were voting for.
We don't know what the 16.2m were voting for just it wasn't the same as the 14.6m.
Unless there's a breakdown of the 16.2m?

 

[RobinBHM]

Try to spin the figures?

14.6m voted for parties trying to "Get Brexit done". 16.2m voted for parties either promising a second referendum with the option to remain, or willing to cancel Brexit altogether.

And this matches up almost identically with the EURef2 poll of polls: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls-2/

There is certainly no indication whatsoever that the majority wanting to leave the EU has increased since 2016, which is the point Clinton made that I was disagreeing with. If anything, all available data suggests that remain is now slightly ahead of leave.

Alas, we'll now never know for sure.

Brexiteers dishonestly claim that the election was a 2nd referendum, but when the numbers are pointed out they dispute it. Mmm

 

[RobinBHM]

I knew it would not take long for someone to try and spin the figures. Labour are also a "leave" party - they simply wanted their own deal and Corbyn has been anti EU for years but would not say so recently.

That isnt really true, Corbyn is a lifelong leaver, his party wasnt.
in any case if people voted for labour then they voted for a confirmatory vote. That is not brexit.

Its all water under the bridge now, Brexit wise

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Incredibly glad this vote brought both sides together

 

[RobinBHM]

Because the 'voters want out' thing breaks down a bit when you say 'Oh, but there are different versions of Brexit..didn't anyone know?'

'No Deal', 'Oven Ready', 11 months of negotiations, potential for further delays at the end of 2020. From what I understand, 'most voters want Brexit' as in...out...all out...completely out, out OUT! They don't realise there's still going to be a period of negotiation. Many think that we're leaving on the 31st and are manning the fishing boats ready to re-take the North Sea.

The 31st is just the start of some long, drawn out saga and we'll probably be here next year, talking about the same stuff. Boris might even be kicked out by then, if he starts to fall apart at the seams under all the promises he's made. Then we're back to square one.

That's another reason why Remainers don't quite understand the Brexit stuff. It seems like so much hassle and we still might not get anywhere because there are so many versions.

Cummings understood the problem of brexiteers belonging to so many different camps -he used the strategy of making parliament and the courts a common enenmy to bring the brexiteer camps together, he also moved the narrative to 'get brexit done' to avoid the how why and which brexit option.

get brexit done is of course dishonest because Johnsons brexit will lead to a no deal next year and so years of dither and delay will ensue.

a 2nd referendum with option of soft brexit or stay would have got brexit done much faster.

 

[RobinBHM]

Incredibly glad this vote brought both sides together

Im assuming that is being sarcastic

 

[Mr D]

Incredibly glad this vote brought both sides together

The vote may have done. I'm sure parliament is capable of widening divisions by their actions over the next 6 weeks!

 

[Clinton]

There is certainly no indication whatsoever that the majority wanting to leave the EU has increased since 2016, which is the point Clinton made that I was disagreeing with.

No indication? <Sigh> the guy who was 100% adamant he was going to "Get Brexit Done" got a thumping majority.

The woman who said she'd cancel Brexit lost her seat.

How much clearer could the electorate have been?

If anything, all available data suggests that remain is now slightly ahead of leave.

All available data on voting intentions?

As long as we ignore the latest vote itself?!

I love it. You really are funny!

I'd be interested in your answer to one question: Why did all these Remain supporters not vote Lib Dem given that Labour wasn't guaranteeing them a Remain future? Wouldn't any strong Remain sentiment have been reflected in Lib Dem share of the vote? LD were up by a measly 4% over the dismal 2017.

No, wait, don't bother answering, I'm sure you'll come up with c*ck and bull story about how everyone wanted to vote Lib Dem but they got seduced by that charismatic Corbyn chap who split the Remain vote. And how, if he hadn't split the Remain vote, Remain would have got an 80 seat majority.

 

[John Hemming]

Boris Johnson has a the majority to push pretty well anything through parliament. Hence something will now happen. It may not be the best something, but it will have the advantage of certainty.

 

[Mr D]

Boris Johnson has a the majority to push pretty well anything through parliament. Hence something will now happen. It may not be the best something, but it will have the advantage of certainty.

And may well have sufficient votes to ignore the more extreme elements within his party who want a different Brexit than him.
When he has a minority, as he had just before parliament ended, any vote on Brexit required catering to minority groups in his own or other parties who could demand a high price for their votes.

Be interesting to see what he does over the next 12 months. We rarely see any government with a large majority.

 

[John Hemming]

Boris Johnson has also shown a certain ruthlessness with dissenters which would mean that any threats of removing the whip would be taken seriously.

 

[Clinton]

Idiots?
Cretins?
Soon to be unemployed?

Why? Why not call a spade a spade?

If someone is working against the interests of the UK, sabotaging trade talks, putting us at a disadvantage in negotiations, actively talking up the other side and talking down our side ... or actively working to advise the other side on how they can gain an advantage over the UK, isn't that being a traitor? That's the text book definition!

I don't understand the sensitivity of this word. It was been used before and there was a hue and cry in the media. If someone has betrayed his country then s/he is a traitor as per any definition. Plain and simple. That they don't like being called this is a different matter. The question is, does the cap fit? If it fits then we should be free to refer to them as traitors.

They might see themselves as citizens of the EU and so feel that it is right they support the EU against the UK, but that's a poor argument if they carry a UK passport. They are still traitors if their sympathies and support are with the EU in any EU vs UK matter.

These people are still around and they are still a danger because they'll be leaking inside info to the EU and damaging our side's negotiating strength. We shouldn't be complacent about them simply because of a big Tory majority. Some of them are in the Tory party and have been returned to Parliament!

Why do you go all softly, softly, find euphemisms, and not use the apt word for these people?

 

[John Hemming]

The issues relating to the future relationship with the EU remain them same, but the political balance has shifted. I don't think Johnson is foolish enough to actually want a no deal arrangement to happen and the EU would be entirely happy to have us end up with Canada --- as the deal so that industrial investment (eg Tesla) goes to the continent rather than the UK.

 

[Mr D]

Why? Why not call a spade a spade?

If someone is working against the interests of the UK, sabotaging trade talks, putting us at a disadvantage in negotiations, actively talking up the other side and talking down our side ... or actively working to advise the other side on how they can gain an advantage over the UK, isn't that being a traitor? That's the text book definition!

I don't understand the sensitivity of this word. It was been used before and there was a hue and cry in the media. If someone has betrayed his country then s/he is a traitor as per any definition. Plain and simple. That they don't like being called this is a different matter. The question is, does the cap fit? If it fits then we should be free to refer to them as traitors.

They might see themselves as citizens of the EU and so feel that it is right they support the EU against the UK, but that's a poor argument if they carry a UK passport. They are still traitors if their sympathies and support are with the EU in any EU vs UK matter.

These people are still around and they are still a danger because they'll be leaking inside info to the EU and damaging our side's negotiating strength. We shouldn't be complacent about them simply because of a big Tory majority. Some of them are in the Tory party and have been returned to Parliament!

Why do you go all softly, softly, find euphemisms, and not use the apt word for these people?

Because its using emotive language that does not apply.

Throw it around like confetti and the term becomes simply 'disagreeing with me'.
Which do you want?

 

[RobinBHM]

Why? Why not call a spade a spade?

Yes why not:
Boris Johnson deal means a break up of the United Kingdom.
Brexiteers are trecherous traitors

Clinton wants no deal because chaos of a no deal will yield lots of businesses for sale.
What does Clinton do for a career........

sabotaging trade talks, putting us at a disadvantage in negotiations

Incorrect.
Keeping no deal on table would never make the EU swerve from protecting the single market.
Its time brexiteers stopped with the cake abd eat it fantasies and got real.

There ya go, nice clear message, calling a spade a spade.

 

[Clinton]

Throw it around like confetti and the term becomes simply 'disagreeing with me'.
Which do you want?

We've already seen in this thread some people thinking that I used the term to refer to those who did not agree with me rather than UK passport holders who are working against the interests of the UK.

But you'll always get some people who don't read things properly.

And they'll be many who misinterpret words just so they can get offended.

I don't know why you use the wrong terminology to placate such people. It diminishes the danger they pose.

The EU is a tricky one for people who genuinely believe with their heart and soul that the UK is better off in the EU. If they are fighting for what they believe is in their country's best interests, that's commendable (though, maybe, misguided).

Even if they try to sabotage the UK leaving, I'll shrug a shoulder. They are, after all, doing what they believe is in the UK's best interests. They are going against what I see is a clear democratic mandate, but that can be forgiven to some extent.

It's not those people who are traitors. But, unfortunately, we do have a lot of MPs - MPs, FFS - who are on the EU's side. They feel so sorry for the EU, for the damage the UK's departure is causing member states, that they've been helping the EU to ensure we get the worst terms possible so as to dissuade other states from leaving.

Siding with the EU against the UK is criminal, it damages the UK, it affects all of us. And we still have MPs who are traitors. The danger hasn't passed.

 

[Mr D]

We've already seen in this thread some people thinking that I used the term to refer to those who did not agree with me rather than UK passport holders who are working against the interests of the UK.

But you'll always get some people who don't read things properly.

And they'll be many who misinterpret words just so they can get offended.

I don't know why you use the wrong terminology to placate such people. It diminishes the danger they pose.

The EU is a tricky one for people who genuinely believe with their heart and soul that the UK is better off in the EU. If they are fighting for what they believe is in their country's best interests, that's commendable (though, maybe, misguided).

Even if they try to sabotage the UK leaving, I'll shrug a shoulder. They are, after all, doing what they believe is in the UK's best interests. They are going against what I see is a clear democratic mandate, but that can be forgiven to some extent.

It's not those people who are traitors. But, unfortunately, we do have a lot of MPs - MPs, FFS - who are on the EU's side. They feel so sorry for the EU, for the damage the UK's departure is causing member states, that they've been helping the EU to ensure we get the worst terms possible so as to dissuade other states from leaving.

Siding with the EU against the UK is criminal, it damages the UK, it affects all of us. And we still have MPs who are traitors. The danger hasn't passed.

Then get action taken by the courts regarding treason and once found guilty then I'll accept they are traitors.
In the meantime dozens of people use the term to simply refer to those with different views.
Not having seen the evidence you have I don't use the term lightly.

The ones who it turns out are traitors can be dealt with in the courts or by courts martial and have the relevant punishment applied.

Oh and I don't believe I'm using the wrong terminology. Not sure either of us is.

 

[MOIC]

Incredibly glad this vote brought both sides together

Yep!

 

[RobinBHM]

They feel so sorry for the EU, for the damage the UK's departure is causing member states

The UKs departure will cause damage to the UK.
Anybody that believes in sunlit uplands is in fantasy land.

The UKs departure will create benefits to member states, esp in financial services.

 

[The Byre]

The UKs departure will create benefits to member states, esp in financial services.

I believe that playing card was given away already by May and Johnson didn't think to try to claw it back!

The whole thing reminds me of a middle-aged woman with several children asking her gynecologist if she can regain her virginity!

 

[Mr D]

I believe that playing card was given away already by May and Johnson didn't think to try to claw it back!

The whole thing reminds me of a middle-aged woman with several children asking her gynecologist if she can regain her virginity!

Its a simple operation. Been around for quite a while.
Though why someone would want to get it done is open to question. Pain fanatics maybe?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

No indication? <Sigh> the guy who was 100% adamant he was going to "Get Brexit Done" got a thumping majority.

The woman who said she'd cancel Brexit lost her seat.

How much clearer could the electorate have been?

No indication whatsoever, no. 14.6m voted for pro-Brexit parties. 16.2m voted for second referendum/no Brexit parties. The FPTP constituency arithmetic has resulted in a majority for the Tories, but in raw numbers we're not even close to seeing any indication that the leave vote has grown.

The woman who said she'd cancel Brexit lost her seat to the SNP, which also wants to stop Brexit. Why on Earth would you consider that a good point to mention?

To look at this GE result with 14.6m vs 16.2m, to look at 53/47 in the poll of polls, and still believe with such confidence that the leave vote has grown since 2016, is really quite remarkable.

I'd be interested in your answer to one question: Why did all these Remain supporters not vote Lib Dem given that Labour wasn't guaranteeing them a Remain future? Wouldn't any strong Remain sentiment have been reflected in Lib Dem share of the vote? LD were up by a measly 4% over the dismal 2017.

Two reasons:

1. Because most remain supporters, myself included, aren't actually comfortable with the government just revoking Brexit like that. It should only be done if the majority of the country want it, and they show they want it via a second referendum where the people have a free opportunity overrule their own previous choice. If they do, we stay, if they don't, we still leave. Labour offered that, as did other parties.

2. This election was about far more than just Brexit, with numerous other issues at play. The Lib Dems, for example, were the only party admitting they'd increase income tax across the board, which was probably rather unpopular. And it's these other issues which make a GE a very unreliable measure of Brexit sentiment. Remember, I didn't claim the GE result means anything regarding Brexit sentiment - you did. I merely posted the figures to show that a big seat majority for a pro-Brexit party means nothing when the popular vote has a majority for second ref/no Brexit parties.

 

[Clinton]

LOL, yes, of course, Remainers didn't turn out in droves to vote for the Lib Dems because they didn't like the Lib Dem policy on income tax. Sure

The flaw in your maths - about counting Labour as a Remain party - has already been explained to you, multiple times. But you don't give up. And you persist in counting every vote Labour got as a vote for remaining.

May I suggest you get with the program, stop moaning about the will of the people being in some imaginary make-believe land of yours, and start looking forward to prepare for the opportunities ahead.

 

[KM-Tiger]

And you persist in counting every vote Labour got as a vote for remaining.

And conversely there are Conservative remainers, and even LibDem leavers. There is no reliable way of even estimating those numbers so the exercise is pointless.

The only certainty is that we voted for a govt that would "Get Brexit Done", and I don't think anyone can argue that we "didn't know what we were voting for".

Having been around in the 1970s this does remind me of 1979. After many years of pissing around getting nowhere, suddenly there was someone to vote for who looked like she might get things sorted, and she did. I just hope Boris can do the same.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

LOL, yes, of course, Remainers didn't turn out in droves to vote for the Lib Dems because they didn't like the Lib Dem policy on income tax. Sure

The flaw in your maths - about counting Labour as a Remain party - has already been explained to you, multiple times. But you don't give up. And you persist in counting every vote Labour got as a vote for remaining.

May I suggest you get with the program, stop moaning about the will of the people being in some imaginary make-believe land of yours, and start looking forward to prepare for the opportunities ahead.

I didn't count Labour as a remain party. I counted them as a second referendum party. Which they are. Nor did I say the popular vote means anything one way or the other. You are the one suggesting that a large seat majority for the Tories means the leave vote share has grown, despite the popular vote share indicating nothing of the sort, making it a completely ridiculous suggestion.

But you did suggest that the Lib Dem leader losing her seat to the anti-Brexit SNP in a 53,000 vote Scottish constituency is somehow indicative of increased pro-Brexit sentiment across the UK, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at what you manage to come up with.

 

[Mr D]

No indication whatsoever, no. 14.6m voted for pro-Brexit parties. 16.2m voted for second referendum/no Brexit parties. The FPTP constituency arithmetic has resulted in a majority for the Tories, but in raw numbers we're not even close to seeing any indication that the leave vote has grown.

So 3 groups, one larger than the others.
The pro-Brexit group being 14.6m, how many for second referendum and how many for no Brexit?
Those are two different groups. Putting together gives a big figure but is also a bad use of the figures.
Different groups, not the same group.

So what is the breakdown of the 16.2m so we can see how each compares to the other groups?

 

[Mr D]

LOL, yes, of course, Remainers didn't turn out in droves to vote for the Lib Dems because they didn't like the Lib Dem policy on income tax. Sure

The flaw in your maths - about counting Labour as a Remain party - has already been explained to you, multiple times. But you don't give up. And you persist in counting every vote Labour got as a vote for remaining.

May I suggest you get with the program, stop moaning about the will of the people being in some imaginary make-believe land of yours, and start looking forward to prepare for the opportunities ahead.

Perhaps they didn't like the lib dem policy on income tax.

Lots of reasons why someone chooses who to vote for or not vote for.
Brexit is one issue. Its a big one but not necessarily of interest to everyone. The git wanting to steal money from me is also an issue - should I vote in favour of him simply because his Brexit stance is different than the Boris stance?
Can be dozens, hundreds even of reasons why someone should vote for a party or a person.
Focusing on one issue because its the issue important to you ignores them having their own minds, being able to make their own decisions.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

My reading of the situation was that whilst Corbyn sat on the fence like all opposition main parties have done for years, offering alternatives but in a democratic way.

The ex prime minister in waiting and her cronies of the lib dems stated that they would make a un-democratic move immediately and cancel article 50 even though the majority had agreed it. This was seen as a insult to both major parties and the general public

 

[thetiger2015]

May I suggest you get with the program, stop moaning about the will of the people being in some imaginary make-believe land of yours, and start looking forward to prepare for the opportunities ahead.

That's the problem though....what opportunities? We don't even know if we're going to be 'Oven Ready' out or 'No Deal' out and it may take another year to get an answer. The questions of borders remain unanswered due to the current indecisiveness and Boris's deal isn't even liked by much of the Tory party.

You've even said you don't like Boris's deal, so I don't see why you're so chipper when you might end up with a deal you despise and something worse than TM's mess.

I don't actually feel that we've made any progress after all this mucking about.

All the Brexiteers I've seen via social media and those locally are going on about 31st January being a night of partying.....they might get a shock, when they realise we've got another 11 months of talks to go through.

Also, I can see why people are voting for Brexit and why a second referendum would have ended up with the same result as before, or even more pro-Brexit but I just don't believe in the unicorn laced fields of gold that we're being promised and that the Brexiteers are so enchanted by.

We can trade with the rest of the world apparently...we already do that! I'm yet to see what is actually going to be any different in the future after all this fluff? If we can still trade with the EU in 2021 then...what was the point of all this exactly? Sovereignty? That gets sold and bought left right and centre when it comes down to trade deals. If you think the US or China are going to beg us for deals then you're living on a unicorn farm because they're going to rip us apart in any trade negotiations.

 

[thetiger2015]

My reading of the situation was that whilst Corbyn sat on the fence like all opposition main parties have done for years, offering alternatives but in a democratic way.

The ex prime minister in waiting and her cronies of the lib dems stated that they would make a un-democratic move immediately and cancel article 50 even though the majority had agreed it. This was seen as a insult to both major parties and the general public

I don't even think the Lib Dems were viewed as anything other than a protest vote or people making a mistake on the ballot paper. They completely missed the mark and the Cons just stole half of Labours votes by having a good slogan #GETBREXITDONE << simple, easy to follow, straight to the point.

Labour messed about with stuff and Corbyn didn't rock up until a few months ago. By then, the damage had been done and the papers had been running stories on him since he came in as leader.

The Cons have nailed the media this time round. They avoided getting a beating from questions on Andrew Neil or C4 and when it got tough, they hid in a fridge. They knew the opposition were miles away and the only thing they had to worry about was the youth vote. Labour probably won that but in the process lost all their long standing voters.

 

[thetiger2015]

I think it's also important to note that while Brexit is the umbrella that everyone is talking about, what goes on underneath that umbrella is also of concern.

The Conservatives have a majority, they have a manifesto and they also have various plans and new laws that they want to bring in. While we are all staring at the pretty Brexit umbrella, there are many people working away on Conservative plans that may impact members of our society in the future.

The Tory's have the upper hand in voting things through now and it won't just be Brexit that they'll be talking about. Vote 'GETBREXITDONE' and you also vote in Conservative policies, pledges and changes to various laws that may impact business and society.

 

[Mr D]

I think it's also important to note that while Brexit is the umbrella that everyone is talking about, what goes on underneath that umbrella is also of concern.

The Conservatives have a majority, they have a manifesto and they also have various plans and new laws that they want to bring in. While we are all staring at the pretty Brexit umbrella, there are many people working away on Conservative plans that may impact members of our society in the future.

The Tory's have the upper hand in voting things through now and it won't just be Brexit that they'll be talking about. Vote 'GETBREXITDONE' and you also vote in Conservative policies, pledges and changes to various laws that may impact business and society.

Yes, pretty much like the last 9 years.

What would have been worse was labour spending more to provide you with less service!

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes, pretty much like the last 9 years.

What would have been worse was labour spending more to provide you with less service!

Is it possible to provide less service than the Tories in the last 9 years.

 

[RobinBHM]

Also, I can see why people are voting for Brexit and why a second referendum would have ended up with the same result as before, or even more pro-Brexit but I just don't believe in the unicorn laced fields of gold that we're being promised and that the Brexiteers are so enchanted by.

We can trade with the rest of the world apparently...we already do that! I'm yet to see what is actually going to be any different in the future after all this fluff? If we can still trade with the EU in 2021 then...what was the point of all this exactly? Sovereignty? That gets sold and bought left right and centre when it comes down to trade deals. If you think the US or China are going to beg us for deals then you're living on a unicorn farm because they're going to rip us apart in any trade negotiations

The brexit sold by the leave campaign was and will never be deliverablr.

Emotive soundbites won because the real arguments are complex and nuanced.
The reality is that regulatory divergence will cause a high cost due to non tariff barriers.

Yes we get sovereignty back, but only until a new deal elsewhere is done.

Johnson wont get brexit done. All he will do is get a Withdrawal Agreement Bill through parliament -its an EU treaty, not a deal that Johnson wanted, it was an old EU deal rejected by TM.

Johnsons agreement includes 'level playing field' -EU wont drop that and UK wont accept as it rules out US deal. So next year we will be back to no deal or extension.

Johnson could throw the ERG under a bus and accept a soft brexit -thats the only way brexits getting done in the next 5 years

 

[thetiger2015]

Yes, pretty much like the last 9 years.

What would have been worse was labour spending more to provide you with less service!

Both parties went crazy with the giveaways in the run up to the election though.

Conservative pledges - 50k more nurses, 20k more police, £14 billion of investment for education/retraining services, end of austerity measures, £6 billion for renewable energy, £2 billion for road upgrades, continued investment for HS2 and 40 new hospitals They also promised not to increase taxes for most people, so they'd have to borrow more to achieve all of the above unless they're planning on this taking 10 years or more to complete.

Remember that they've already cut 26k police and they're only planning to train 30k nurses, the rest will be made up by extending the contracts/employment of current staff. There also won't be 40 brand new hospitals, as they're planning to refurbish many of the existing ones.

Neither party can really say they spend less than the other, so Labour are equally rubbish with the public purse: https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

Labour blew lots of cash and used PFI to achieve their goals over a decade ago but the banking crisis really broke the camels back and plunged their spending in to the hole we're now in. The Conservatives said that cuts and austerity would pull us back in to line but it's actually got worse because the country has run out of cash to throw at itself.

When the government say 'invest in' they mean throw money at it and hope it looks good. When we business people say 'invest in' we mean it will make us our money back and a tidy profit to boot.

 

[thetiger2015]

Johnsons agreement includes 'level playing field' -EU wont drop that and UK wont accept as it rules out US deal. So next year we will be back to no deal or extension.

Johnson could throw the ERG under a bus and accept a soft brexit -thats the only way brexits getting done in the next 5 years

Labour best be ready to pounce then, because the public will be in uproar if they don't get Brexit - unless we get Brexit(lite) and it's painted to look good.

Unfortunately for Labour, I think they're going to just do the same thing they've done for the last few years and stay on the far left, thus alienating the middle and leaving people to float over to Conservatives again.

 

[Mr D]

Labour best be ready to pounce then, because the public will be in uproar if they don't get Brexit - unless we get Brexit(lite) and it's painted to look good.

Unfortunately for Labour, I think they're going to just do the same thing they've done for the last few years and stay on the far left, thus alienating the middle and leaving people to float over to Conservatives again.

Is Brexit (lite) not Brexit then?
Are we leaving or aren't we? If we are is that Brexit? If we aren't then can we elect a new government in 2024 to implement it?