steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 18:22:38 GMT
"But he was hanpered by his inheritance"
It's about £750 million !
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 23, 2024 18:39:00 GMT
Hi domjg , I think thats a bit off the mark. Would you have said the same to someone from a mining community in 1995, 'Oh the Tories did that to you a decade ago, you should forget about it'? To many, austerity had just as much damage to communities as Thatcher's policies did and the effects are still being felt. I know for you the big defining issue of the recent past is Brexit (as it impacted you), but for many others it has been austerity (because it impacted them). In 1995 the tories would have defended what they did in the eighties. I'm no LD and yes they betrayed many of their supporters but they just allowed themselves to be carried along by the tide and are hardly cheerleaders for austerity now. The blame for it falls squarely at the tories door and continues to do so for the parlous state of our country now. Hi domjg. Well the LDs stick by their record in the coalition and make no apology for it. So it's perfectly reasonable for voters who were impacted by austerity to continue to hold the LD's accountable for their role in it. It wasn't that long ago.
Now tactically I think its of little value, and probably counterproductive, for Labour to directly attack the LD's atm, but as soon as Labour is in power and subject to attack from the LD's, it would equally be folly for them not to attack the LDs on this issue.
Personally I think austerity was more damaging to this country than Brexit, with the former playing a major role in why the latter occurred.
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jan 23, 2024 18:46:50 GMT
Reuters report a slight reduction in support for AfD
"BERLIN (Reuters) - Support for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) dropped slightly in two polls published on Tuesday after 10 days of nationwide protests against the far-right party, although it remained firmly in second place.
Support for the AfD dropped 2 percentage points to 20% in a Forsa poll, the lowest level in four months. The party remained behind the opposition conservatives on 31% but still well ahead of all the three parties in Chancellor Olaf Scholz's centre-left coalition, who together were polling 32%.
The AfD dropped 1.5 percentage points on the week to 21.5% in the poll by the German Institute for New Social Answers (INSA), behind the conservatives on 30.5% and the ruling coalition on 31%. "The demonstrations against the AfD are supported by 37% of Germans and they are showing an impact," INSA chief Hermann Binkert said."
|
|
shevii
Member
Posts: 2,164
Member is Online
|
Post by shevii on Jan 23, 2024 19:14:21 GMT
Some welcome balance here in the "Unstoppable Trump" narrative. Reich is no fan, and has been very critical of Trump over the last seven years or so, but I find the argument he's putting here as to why Trump won't win in November quite compelling. I agree with much of what he says. Some interesting statistics too about how many people are actually voting in these US Republican primaries. Trump received the votes of 3% of Iowans in the recent primary in that state. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/23/trump-primaries-election-biden-robert-reichI think anyone saying Trump is "unstoppable" is being silly as it is obviously pretty close and people can make a case for either so he's right to flag up those newspaper comments as being nonsense. Unfortunately the article seems focused on the internal Republican race and totally ignores national opinion polling where Trump certainly has a very slight edge now and goes up a notch if either of the independents, Kennedy and West, stay in the race. West in particular could be dangerous to Biden on all sorts of (single) issues although whether his current circa 3% would have voted for Biden if West wasn't standing is debatable. Kennedy appears to take votes off both in roughly equal measure and seems more likely to pull out perhaps. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_electionIt's definitely right to point out underperformance by the Republicans in "local" elections as mercian might do (smiley) and the possibility of events that will damage Trump like being convicted, but as long as he can pay the lawyers fees (apparently in some doubt) he can probably drag that out until November. I have much the same feeling on Trump that I had in 2016 where after all the revelations he should have been dead and buried but wasn't, and while I didn't necessarily expect him to win I did have in the back of my mind that he could. I think people have every right to be nervous based on the opinion polls. Support for Biden is pretty lukewarm these days (and mostly would be with anyone on a second term but especially with him I think) so get out to vote may be more muted as well as further voting suppression measures since 2020.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 19:23:17 GMT
What I'm saying it's just about impossible for any Government to address concerns without causing upset to other groups The problem comes when the government represents a smaller and smaller proportion of the population, so whatever it does 'in the name of the people' is always opposed by more of those people than support it. And thats why western democracies are crumbling.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 19:34:44 GMT
I agree Government's should try and find fair solutions, but in fairness to all Government's that's not easy. Take immigration, there's concern by one side its too high, but businesses want it to address acute Labour shortages. A solution certainly isn't easy and will almost certainly upset one group or the other Also agree with your second point, it shouldn't have been decided that way. Although having decided to leave the EU a compromise such as staying in the single market could have helped address some concerns while abiding by the Referendum result, which seemed to me would have been a fair compromise/solution Thats not really how it worked. leave promised brexit would solve all the UKs problems. When compromises were discussed, leavers made it very clear, 'leave means leave'. They didnt say that during the campaign, but they did afterwards. Con had no choice but to accept what the leavers were demanding, thats how Johnson won in 2019. If they had not united behind hhard leave, he would have lost that election. Maybe only 10% of the nation were determined on hard leave, but it was the difference between victory and defeat. Thats the nature of FPP, and in fact something the libs utterly forgot in coalition with con. If there had only been one lib MP and that person had been the difference between taking government or not, then they should have demanded an equal say in government. The SDP did a much better job of getting what they wanted out of May.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 19:43:10 GMT
I absolutely do not think that unmanaged immigration would not be concerning, that would be crazy. What we have now is managed immigration as the economy as currently constituted and demographics demands and international obligations on providing sanctuary. We dont. We really do not. We have a housing crisis caused by a combination of steadily growing population -driven by immigration- and a ban on housebuilding. Thats not a sustainable economic plan, rather its a recipe for disaster. Imported labour is to a large extent used to distort the labour market, again leading to many brits being underpaid compared to the importance of their jobs to society. In turn widening the wealth gap, which is tearing the nation apart. Importing labour is a short term fixup leading to an ever growing long term problem. Sure, I see why governments which are inevitably looking max 5 years ahead will go for immigration, but its a long run national disaster. Especially whn government makes no attempt to properly integrate those new arrivals and as I said just uses them as cheap labour.(even eg imported doctors are cheap labour, compared to trainign them ourselves) I entirely agree, irregular immigration to the Uk has been negligible since the invention of border controls to monitor it. Probably, ever, since there has been a central government.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 19:55:29 GMT
[/font] domjg. Well the LDs stick by their record in the coalition and make no apology for it. So it's perfectly reasonable for voters who were impacted by austerity to continue to hold the LD's accountable for their role in it. It wasn't that long ago.[/quote]Good point. Although, if libs are targetting the left con vote, being the caring face of conservatism must be a vote winner. Their claim to have mitigated con action while in partnership stands up in that respect. Where its less helpful is trying to attract genuinely left voters, which labour is not aiming for, and some of which the libs certainly did appeal to from 1997 on. Austerity has been running for 14 years, brexit still has not taken full effect. The consequences of brexit will continue to harm the UK until brexit is reversed, also true of austerity of course, but its totally unclear yet how badly we will be impacted by brexit. No party has yet explained how it will resolve the UKs financial government black hole except by growth of the economy, whereas there is no sign in the UK or any similar western country that is going to work. The underlying reason is these countries are just not going to grow demand and all the time we just buy goods from abroad we are simply exporting wealth. When I was young the balance of payments was an utter obsession of governments, now its never mentioned, out of sight out of mind. But the Uk has become steadily (relatively) poorer decade by decade.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 23, 2024 20:08:01 GMT
Many people, in all ways of life are attracted by the "ooh, shiny!" (That, after all is what advertisers are relying on - the desire for something new even if not strictly necessary). Hence, a new political party, but populated by individuals who are already known names, may have a short term vote boost that will see the candidates (just) make it over the line, whereas staying with the old party would not. It worked for the SDP, after all. Not so much for Change UK It didn't really work for the SDP either. 28 Labour and 1 Conservative MPs defected to the SDP but only 4 were reelected in 1983 - Owen, Cartwright, Maclennan and Wrigglesworth.* * There were six SDP MPs in 1983, but Jenkins won his seat in a by-election and Kennedy was a new MP. Kennedy and Maclennan won seats with a prior Liberal history. Wrigglesworth was fortunate that his Conservative opponent was outed as a former National Front candidate in the course of the campaign otherwise he would almost certainly have lost.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 20:15:02 GMT
Quite nice to see twitter picking up on the daft juxtaposition of conflicting messaging on public health by HMG departments -
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 23, 2024 20:26:48 GMT
What I find so dispiriting at this time is the clear lack of any intent on Labour's part to commit to any policies which begin to reverse the Thatcher settlement and the accumulated human wickedness which went with it. If Labour has no interest in moving in that direction now - when it enjoys big poll leads and with every sign of continuing Tory disarray - I am inclined to believe it will never do so.Starmer and Reeves appear determined to continue singing from the Thatcheite Tory hymn sheet - far too timid to even consider taking the initiative by declaring that any tax cuts announced by Hunt in March are unaffordable and have to be reversed to provide support to our public services - including those provided by Local Government.It is such a deptressing outlook - and a wasted opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 23, 2024 20:29:15 GMT
Not so much for Change UK It didn't really work for the SDP either. 28 Labour and 1 Conservative MPs defected to the SDP but only 4 were reelected in 1983 - Owen, Cartwright, Maclennan and Wrigglesworth.* * There were six SDP MPs in 1983, but Jenkins won his seat in a by-election and Kennedy was a new MP. Kennedy and Maclennan won seats with a prior Liberal history. Wrigglesworth was fortunate that his Conservative opponent was outed as a former National Front candidate in the course of the campaign otherwise he would almost certainly have lost. Though they did match the Liberal representation at three consecutive GEs in the 1950s - ie 1951 - 1959.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 23, 2024 20:29:41 GMT
Some welcome balance here in the "Unstoppable Trump" narrative. Reich is no fan, and has been very critical of Trump over the last seven years or so, but I find the argument he's putting here as to why Trump won't win in November quite compelling. I agree with much of what he says. Some interesting statistics too about how many people are actually voting in these US Republican primaries. Trump received the votes of 3% of Iowans in the recent primary in that state. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/23/trump-primaries-election-biden-robert-reichI think anyone saying Trump is "unstoppable" is being silly as it is obviously pretty close and people can make a case for either so he's right to flag up those newspaper comments as being nonsense. Unfortunately the article seems focused on the internal Republican race and totally ignores national opinion polling where Trump certainly has a very slight edge now and goes up a notch if either of the independents, Kennedy and West, stay in the race. West in particular could be dangerous to Biden on all sorts of (single) issues although whether his current circa 3% would have voted for Biden if West wasn't standing is debatable. Kennedy appears to take votes off both in roughly equal measure and seems more likely to pull out perhaps. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_electionIt's definitely right to point out underperformance by the Republicans in "local" elections as mercian might do (smiley) and the possibility of events that will damage Trump like being convicted, but as long as he can pay the lawyers fees (apparently in some doubt) he can probably drag that out until November. I have much the same feeling on Trump that I had in 2016 where after all the revelations he should have been dead and buried but wasn't, and while I didn't necessarily expect him to win I did have in the back of my mind that he could. I think people have every right to be nervous based on the opinion polls. Support for Biden is pretty lukewarm these days (and mostly would be with anyone on a second term but especially with him I think) so get out to vote may be more muted as well as further voting suppression measures since 2020. Reich does indeed concentrate on the Republican primaries rather than the putative Trump v Biden presidential race opinion polls but I think he makes the very fair point that, and these are his exact words "when Americans actually focus on the presidential election and the stark reality of choosing between Biden and Trump, I expect they will once again choose Biden." We are still 10 months away from a contest that may not even take place. Putative scarcely does justice to the if buts and maybes strewn along the road to a Trump v Biden race becoming a reality. Accordingly, like Reich, I'm in the very sceptical school (VSS) that doubts how reliable a guide current opinion polls are now to anything very much. You have to factor in Biden's current poor approval ratings that may (will, I think) improve markedly if and when the stark choice between him and Trump dawns on voters. I think we are then in different political territory altogether. I think Reich is right to be wary of overplaying the prospect of Trump returning to the White House and to pour some cold water on the self perpetuating hysteria that surrounds his political persona. I noticed your "smiley thing" when talking about the relevance of local elections to the national picture which I presume, considering you rather bizarrely name-checked mercian along the way, must be some deeply ironic reference to my regular refrain about the dangers of attaching too much weight to regional and local election results. My smiley thing rejoinder would be that I think mid-term Congressional and governorship elections in the US may be better harbingers of national electoral performance than UK local council by-elections might be to general elections here! Therefore, I do think Reich is right to point to Trumpian candidates particularly underperforming in a number of those regional elections, and the Republican party as a whole suffering the same lukewarm fate too. But of course, stating the bleedin' obvious, a Trump victory cannot be entirely ruled out and a degree of nervousness about that won't go away until he's locked up, withdraws or is beaten. My money is still on him going to jail.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 20:34:42 GMT
We're getting close to Canadian Conservative territory here. They were polling 15% when they were reduced to 2 seats (-154). Their leader Kim Campbell lost her seat in the rout, which does not augur well for Sunak if the Tory support continues to decline. I can't really see a Canada 1993 result happening, as the Conservatives are still likely to make some recovery from their 2019 'Don't Knows'. Probably not on the scale of the 'adjusted' Opinium or MIC polls (or the YouGov MRP) which show around a 14%, but more likely to around 17% - roughly halfway between the 'adjusted' polls (@14% av) and the 'unadjusted' ones ( @21% av). This might be something like Lab 43%, Con 26%. If that happened, the Tories could be reduced to around 120-140 seats. However, if their vote were really to be reduced much below that 26%, their seat-losses would accelerate well above my '15 seats per 1% swing' rule of thumb. This is due to a combination of their rather even vote-spread, proportionate losses, and the effect of tactical voting. So where they held 60% in 2019, current detailed polling suggests that they would be reduced to just 0.55 of this - so 33%. Anti-Tory voting would then ensure that the better-placed of Lab or LD takes the seat. A true 'meltdown' could occur if they were reduced to just 20% of the vote - or 0.45 of their 2019 share. At that point, they would be down to just 35% in their 'safest' seats, and with tactical voting against them, they would be reduced to single figures in Parliament. But I would see a figure of around 125 seats as a reasonable worst-case scenario for them. For reference, the lowest percentage the Tories have ever had since universal suffrage came in was 30.7% in 1997. I find it hard to imagine that they're going to do massively worse than that.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 23, 2024 20:41:05 GMT
It didn't really work for the SDP either. 28 Labour and 1 Conservative MPs defected to the SDP but only 4 were reelected in 1983 - Owen, Cartwright, Maclennan and Wrigglesworth.* * There were six SDP MPs in 1983, but Jenkins won his seat in a by-election and Kennedy was a new MP. Kennedy and Maclennan won seats with a prior Liberal history. Wrigglesworth was fortunate that his Conservative opponent was outed as a former National Front candidate in the course of the campaign otherwise he would almost certainly have lost. Though they did match the Liberal representation at three consecutive GEs in the 1950s - ie 1951 - 1959. I doubt that is an attractive thought to an ambitious Tory MP trying to calculate the best way to hang on to his/her seat.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 20:41:24 GMT
Quite a stark tweet showing why 2024 isn't 1992 Leader likeability the key there, I think. Double whammies, tax bombshells, John Smith shadow budgets at play too. A wistful reflection too. How could John Major have scored so high on likeability?? I always found him peevish with a hint of unpleasantness about him. I got the Cricket Club after dinner speech persona and popularity with Oval diehards, but his apparent charm was utterly lost on me. He was pretty much unknown in 1991. Politicians' popularity generally decreases as the public knows more about them. I bet he wasn't that popular in 1997. And I bet Starmer's rating will be lower after a year in power than it is now.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,074
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 23, 2024 20:44:44 GMT
This tweet from Harry Cole of the Sun suggests yet more tory infighting is imminent Cole was of course very much in in the Johnson/Dorries camp
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 23, 2024 20:52:01 GMT
mercian "For reference, the lowest percentage the Tories have ever had since universal suffrage came in was 30.7% in 1997. I find it hard to imagine that they're going to do massively worse than that."Anything is possible I suppose but, for what it's worth, I tend to agree with you on this. Voting patterns and behaviours can change, and we're now almost thirty years away from 1997, and with a much changed electorate now in place since then, but it does appear from electoral history to be somewhat of a constant that the Tories vote share "floor" is about 30% and Labour's about 28%. Put another way, that's the percentage of the electorate who seem to vote that way come what may and however bad it gets for the party.. Some of the motivation is visceral. I met a Labour voter in Tamworth during the recent by election there, an 83 year old woman, who told me that her long gone parents would never forgive her if she voted any other way, and, in another election, I spoke to a Tory voter who said she always voted "Conversative or whatever they were called." That's just what she did. Always had and always would. You'd be surprised how many such voters exist. It's who they are and what they do. Almost part of their identity.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 23, 2024 21:12:04 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 21:13:16 GMT
And if loc governments fail to address those concerns and fail to manage and integrate increasingly significant numbers of immigrants ( its a trend whether you like it or not) -what are voters supposed to do in your universe ? What strange questions you ask.. My 'universe'? I'm listing things that are probably most people's actual concerns as that's what they are through the ages. Politicians and the media however do have power to deliberately distract and generate false fear elsewhere so as not to have to deal with these. Why is it the tory party talks not so much about bread and butter issues but more about immigration and culture war nonsense? If I may butt in (though colin may have answered this himself), immigration affects all the concerns you mentioned. For instance schools have classes with many kids who can't speak and understand English well or at all, thus affecting the education of the others.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 23, 2024 21:16:22 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
Wayne Rooney is looking for a job. 😉🤣
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,074
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 23, 2024 21:19:36 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
Wayne Rooney is looking for a job. 😉🤣 He may be desperate, but he's not that desperate 😀
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 23, 2024 21:23:07 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
John Redwood's pitch in 1995.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 23, 2024 21:27:04 GMT
GBNews apparently reporting a Trussite coup.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 23, 2024 21:29:50 GMT
GBNews apparently reporting a Trussite coup. They are planning to install the lettuce as Prime Minister.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 21:32:19 GMT
What I'm saying it's just about impossible for any Government to address concerns without causing upset to other groups The problem comes when the government represents a smaller and smaller proportion of the population, so whatever it does 'in the name of the people' is always opposed by more of those people than support it. And thats why western democracies are crumbling. I agree with that except for one quibble. In this country at least the winning party has always been opposed by more people than supported it. The highest percentage any party has got (since 1945 anyway) was Labour in 1951 who got just over 40% of the electorate and still lost!
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 21:34:24 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
He seems to miss the point that far from intertwining the fates of the country and the Tory party the electorate are going to be voting precisely to give the country a fighting chance by putting the 'party' out of it's misery.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 23, 2024 21:40:23 GMT
The problem comes when the government represents a smaller and smaller proportion of the population, so whatever it does 'in the name of the people' is always opposed by more of those people than support it. And thats why western democracies are crumbling. I agree with that except for one quibble. In this country at least the winning party has always been opposed by more people than supported it. The highest percentage any party has got (since 1945 anyway) was Labour in 1951 who got just over 40% of the electorate and still lost! I don't think it follows that those who abstain are necessarily 'opposed' to a particular party . Failing to support is not to be equated with opposition - it might simply mean indifferent or undecided.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 21:44:40 GMT
What I find so dispiriting at this time is the clear lack of any intent on Labour's part to commit to any policies which begin to reverse the Thatcher settlement and the accumulated human wickedness which went with it. If Labour has no interest in moving in that direction now - when it enjoys big poll leads and with every sign of continuing Tory disarray - I am inclined to believe it will never do so.Starmer and Reeves appear determined to continue singing from the Thatcheite Tory hymn sheet - far too timid to even consider taking the initiative by declaring that any tax cuts announced by Hunt in March are unaffordable and have to be reversed to provide support to our public services - including those provided by Local Government.It is such a deptressing outlook - and a wasted opportunity. I think the problem is that though voters in polls may say that they want better public services, most would prefer to just have more money in their pockets when it comes to the crunch. I saw a stat recently that about a third of people in this country have no savings at all! Obviously most of those would rather have more cash in their pockets than more money being thrown at say the NHS which they probably wouldn't notice even if they have to go to hospital. It's a bit like concern for the environment and climate change. I think I've seen polls that say that a majority or at least a significant minority are concerned about it. However not too many will give up their cars (or private jets!) because of it. They'd rather have cheaper petrol.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 21:47:49 GMT
In 1995 the tories would have defended what they did in the eighties. I'm no LD and yes they betrayed many of their supporters but they just allowed themselves to be carried along by the tide and are hardly cheerleaders for austerity now. The blame for it falls squarely at the tories door and continues to do so for the parlous state of our country now. Hi domjg. Well the LDs stick by their record in the coalition and make no apology for it. So it's perfectly reasonable for voters who were impacted by austerity to continue to hold the LD's accountable for their role in it. It wasn't that long ago.
Now tactically I think its of little value, and probably counterproductive, for Labour to directly attack the LD's atm, but as soon as Labour is in power and subject to attack from the LD's, it would equally be folly for them not to attack the LDs on this issue.
Personally I think austerity was more damaging to this country than Brexit, with the former playing a major role in why the latter occurred. Austerity originates with and flows from the tory party and that's as true now as it was then. The LDs were props holding them up for a while that they seduced, duped and then ate alive. Next they used brexit to extend their sell by date and their majority to continue austerity as before regardless of any brief, contrary rhetoric. Brexit extended and deepened austerity and gave the tories the numbers and the means to talk about other stuff while continuing it the whole time under the radar, largely undiscussed. Austerity was in no small way enabled by brexit I think. You compare the two as if we can condemn one or the other. Clearly losing the right to free movement is not on the same personal level as having benefits removed that someone relies on for survival. But they are intimately linked and I totally condemn both as two aspects of the same pathological, evidence free tory ideological dysfunction. Perhaps first term austerity did prompt some to vote for brexit but in doing so all they did was feed the monster. In any case I'm not so sure that the large numbers of comfortable retired who formed the backbone of the brexit vote were that affected by cuts to benefits and child care assistance.
|
|