Will Friday's result be accepted?

[Borchester]

The economy was actually quite robust in 1997, so much so that Labour didn't change the underlying economic policies for some three years. Mind you they were a moderate left of centre party in those days, rather than the extreme hard left marxist party we are faced with today.

About that time Norman Macrae journalist and author and all round clever clogs, made the point that the UK was coming out of recession and that the best thing any chancellor could do would be nothing. Gordon of course, refused to accept this because he felt that there was no point in being chancellor unless he spent his time pissing away the national revenues and whoring after Tony Blair's job.

[BeElBeeBub]

To your last paragraph  why the f**k should we when you didnt accept the first. Frankly if this isnt an overwhelming rout of the remain camp we need bloodshed in the streets.

We accepted the result of the referendum.  The non-binding advisory result was that the UK split nearly down the middle and narrowly favoured leaving, given the promises about how wonderful and easy it would be.



We also exercised our democratic rights to disagree.  The exact same one that levers have been exercising in the face of the 1975 referendum to remain which showed that the UK wished to remain by 2:1 on the terms of a known and ratified treaty.



Every single step in this saga has been democratic.



The government asked the electorate to give it a mandate for brexit, and the electorate replied by eliminating the existing majority



If a hung Parliament is returned and the government calls a 2 ref and we end up remaining I didnt expect you to like it. I expect a hard core of Brexiters will continue to fight until demographic drift dwindles them away. But I did expect you to abide by the result.



However you are now implying that "we need bloodshed on the streets" if you don't get your way in a democratic election.



Have a look at what you are advocating and ask yourself



https://media.makeameme.org/created/are-we-the-5a2a92.jpg">

[BeElBeeBub]

Yes I am and when you say things like this



How else would you interpret it other than someone being rather stupid and believing in enchanted forests blah blah

Nothing about intelligence there.  You voted for a fantasy, an impossibility, a contradiction.



Highly educated people fall for fantasies all the time. Anti-vax is a classic case.  Rates of vaccination actually fall as education levels of parents increase in some areas.



Steve Jobs believed he could beat pancreatic cancer with a macro biotic diet. He convinced himself so much that he literally lost everything.



The fact that what you believe is not deliverable in the same way no amount of belief will create a perpetual motion machine, isn't the fault of those who told you it wasn't deliverable.



Do you still believe after all this that the EU will give us all the benefits of membership with none of the obligations?  Do you think that BMW are still waiting in the wings with the French cheese makers and Italian wine producers to ride to the UKs aid?  Is this the easiest trade deal in human history?

[Javert]

Javert you obviously have trouble understanding the English language. At no point did I lay the entire blame for the 2007/8 financial meltdown at Labour's door. I am fully aware the catalyst emanated from the US. This is why I specifically qualified it with the words 'in part' . There is an old saying which holds good today and applied in in the years leading up to 2008, and that is 'repair the roof while the sun shines'. This was exactly what Gordon Brown didn't do and it was why the financial collapse hit the UK harder than most other first world nations. A further reason for Labours partial responsibility for the collapse was Gordon Brown's inept attempt to implement financial controls before the collapse. He set up what has become known as the 'unholy triumvirate' by appointing the FCA, the BoE and the Treasury jointly responsible for financial control but without setting their limits and areas of responsibility. The result was that there were no financial or banking controls with any real effect.



The conservative Governments austerity measures were virtually identical to those proposed by Labour. The Conservatives with considerable contribution from the LibDems for the first five years and subsequently on their own improved economic growth and employment. There are now more people employed in the UK than ever before. They also substantially reduced the annual budget deficit so I dispute your assertion that the nations finances have continued to deteriorate under the Conservatives. You would need to provide evidence of this. I agree that they have not improved in line with forecasts but over the last three and a half years the parliamentary incompetence and dishonesty by all parties over Brexit has impacted on this.



The economy was actually quite robust in 1997, so much so that Labour didn't change the underlying economic policies for some three years. Mind you they were a moderate left of centre party in those days, rather than the extreme hard left marxist party we are faced with today.



Other than to say I agree that your final assessment of a general feeling is indeed a gross generalisation and as such without value except to the holder of that view. I hold the counter view.

Thanks Major. Here's a few comments in response:



- The deficit was actually not that high when the 2008 recession hit by historical standards.  The claim that Labour's spending was "out of control" and suchlike was extreme exaggeration.  The 2008 recession couldn't be easily foreseen, to the extent that the very few economists who did foresee it were portayed as crackpots at the time, even by the Conservatives.

- Your comment that Labour's austerity plan was the same as the Conservatives is certainly not how I remember it, but if that were the case, surely it would then challenge the assertion that Labour was out of control on spending and just borrow and spend whatever they like.  I suspect that if the Conservatives had been in power from 2005 or so, the results would have been pretty similar.

- As I stated above, according to my research, prior to 2008, the Conservatives wanted even less banking regulation than what Gordon Brown had put in place - this could again lead you to conclude that the same thing would have happened, or worse, if the Conservatives had been in power.

- I am not claiming that Labour's management of the economy was perfect, just that if you look at it over the last half century or so, it's been no worse than the Conservatives on average.

- One other thing I should point out is that even though I don't remember the 1970s personally that well, you don't have to do much research to figure out that there were extreme strikes and the 3 day week during the Conservative rule in the early 1970s, so again it would be cherry picking to claim that all the problems in the 1970s were the fault of the Labour party.

- The Conservatives were already missing their financial forecasts way before the referendum was called.

- The Conservatives called the EU referendum and have been in power for 9 years - as such they can't blame any other party for whatever problems arose from that, and they can't really blame the opposition for voting against them sometimes - that's why it's called the opposition and that's exactly what the Conservatives do when they are in opposition.

- Interest rates globally are extremely low and there are very few economists who think that they are going to go back up to anything like the levels seen before 2008, any time soon.  Therefore a higher % of debt to GDP may not be inconsistent with good financial management if you are spending the money in a sensible way.



The second to last point is to me the point that really annoys me most - the Conservatives have called this election and spent the whole time attacking everyone else, and attacking personally the individuals from other parties - their manifesto is basically "we might be crap, but look, they're even worse".  That's hardly inspiring.



I'm not really a Labour supporter normally, more Lib Dem, but, I smell a rat when I see all this bluster and hysterical nonsense in the media about Labour.

[johnofgwent]

Can I check with the leavers here, given the chances of a hung Parliament are not insignificant (about 1 in 4 at the moment) *if* there is a hung Parliament and a coalition government decides to hold a 2nd referendum - will you accept that result and will you accept the result of the 2nd referendum?

To your last paragraph  why the F@@@ should we when you didnt accept the first. Frankly if this isnt an overwhelming rout of the remain camp we need bloodshed in the streets.

[Churchill]

I agree 100% the only way we can fund the Welfare State better is with a strong economy , Labour have yet to master how to bring one about or even maintain one handed to them on a plate in 97/

[Major Sinic]

Labour must be pretty powerful to have created a huge global recession in 2008.  i find the idea that the Labour party were responsible for the recession quite difficult to believe because many other countries had the exact same recession at that time and it was mainly triggered in the US.



The nation's finances also continued to deteriorate under recent Conservative rule and they consistently failed to meet their financial forecasts.  There's also an argument to say that they could have taken a different approach to getting the finances under control which would have been less damaging in the long term to the UK.



I also seem to recall the Conservatives running our currency into the ground in 1997 after they had been in power for a very long time.



For all the time I've been alive, although I don't really remember the 70s very well as I was very young then, I have lived through long periods of both Conservative and Labour rule.  What I can say is that as a general feeling, whenever Labour were in power, the country felt like a happier and less divided place.  Obviously this is a generalisation, but Conservative periods of rule tended to feel much more divisive, rancorous and angry.

Javert you obviously have trouble understanding the English language. At no point did I lay the entire blame for the 2007/8 financial meltdown at Labour's door. I am fully aware the catalyst emanated from the US. This is why I specifically qualified it with the words 'in part' . There is an old saying which holds good today and applied in in the years leading up to 2008, and that is 'repair the roof while the sun shines'. This was exactly what Gordon Brown didn't do and it was why the financial collapse hit the UK harder than most other first world nations. A further reason for Labours partial responsibility for the collapse was Gordon Brown's inept attempt to implement financial controls before the collapse. He set up what has become known as the 'unholy triumvirate' by appointing the FCA, the BoE and the Treasury jointly responsible for financial control but without setting their limits and areas of responsibility. The result was that there were no financial or banking controls with any real effect.



The conservative Governments austerity measures were virtually identical to those proposed by Labour. The Conservatives with considerable contribution from the LibDems for the first five years and subsequently on their own improved economic growth and employment. There are now more people employed in the UK than ever before. They also substantially reduced the annual budget deficit so I dispute your assertion that the nations finances have continued to deteriorate under the Conservatives. You would need to provide evidence of this. I agree that they have not improved in line with forecasts but over the last three and a half years the parliamentary incompetence and dishonesty by all parties over Brexit has impacted on this.



The economy was actually quite robust in 1997, so much so that Labour didn't change the underlying economic policies for some three years. Mind you they were a moderate left of centre party in those days, rather than the extreme hard left marxist party we are faced with today.



Other than to say I agree that your final assessment of a general feeling is indeed a gross generalisation and as such without value except to the holder of that view. I hold the counter view.

[Javert]

Unfortunately austerity was forced upon us, in part, through the inept economic management of the outgoing Labour Party. I dispute that any deaths can be blamed solely on Tory austerity, or that a doctrine based hostile environment towards vulnerable people ever existed under the Tories.



I certainly recall the dead remaining unburied for weeks at a time was under Callaghan's woeful Labour administration in the seventies and economic management so inept that Labour in effect bankrupted the UK, and the IMF had to lend us the funds to enable us to continue to function and had to take over management of our economy in the meantime.



It seems that every time Labour has a shot at government they bring the nation to its knees economically and the Conservatives are forced to implement unpopular but nevertheless responsible measures to aid our recovery. Perhaps if the economically illiterate stopped voting Labour into office, the Tories wouldn't have to continually curtail desirable expenditure.



We will see if the nation has wised up at last tomorrow and elected a Conservative majority government. Only then is there a real and sustainable chance of long term economic growth and the social advantages which come with it.

Labour must be pretty powerful to have created a huge global recession in 2008.  i find the idea that the Labour party were responsible for the recession quite difficult to believe because many other countries had the exact same recession at that time and it was mainly triggered in the US.



It's also worth mentioning that although it can be argued that the impacts of the 2008 global financial crisis on the UK were worsened by inadequate regulation on the banking sector, back at that time, the Conservatives were arguing for even less regulation on banking, so arguably if they had been in power it would have been even worse.



The nation's finances also continued to deteriorate under recent Conservative rule and they consistently failed to meet their financial forecasts.  There's also an argument to say that they could have taken a different approach to getting the finances under control which would have been less damaging in the long term to the UK.



I also seem to recall the Conservatives running our currency into the ground in 1997 after they had been in power for a very long time.



For all the time I've been alive, although I don't really remember the 70s very well as I was very young then, I have lived through long periods of both Conservative and Labour rule.  What I can say is that as a general feeling, whenever Labour were in power, the country felt like a happier and less divided place.  Obviously this is a generalisation, but Conservative periods of rule tended to feel much more divisive, rancorous and angry.

[Baron von Lotsov]

I find it unnerving that Labour think that a Marxist could compete in an election in Britain. It's not so much the trouble that Labour could be wrong, but the thought they could be right, i.e. Marxism is an electable ticket. If it is then we are in big trouble.

[Major Sinic]

I have to ask, and this is a serious question, just how many deaths caused by Tory austerity and a doctrine based hostile environment towards vulnerable people is acceptable to you? There must be limit which will make you think "not in my name."

Please do not go off on a rant.

Unfortunately austerity was forced upon us, in part, through the inept economic management of the outgoing Labour Party. I dispute that any deaths can be blamed solely on Tory austerity, or that a doctrine based hostile environment towards vulnerable people ever existed under the Tories.



I certainly recall the dead remaining unburied for weeks at a time was under Callaghan's woeful Labour administration in the seventies and economic management so inept that Labour in effect bankrupted the UK, and the IMF had to lend us the funds to enable us to continue to function and had to take over management of our economy in the meantime.



It seems that every time Labour has a shot at government they bring the nation to its knees economically and the Conservatives are forced to implement unpopular but nevertheless responsible measures to aid our recovery. Perhaps if the economically illiterate stopped voting Labour into office, the Tories wouldn't have to continually curtail desirable expenditure.



We will see if the nation has wised up at last tomorrow and elected a Conservative majority government. Only then is there a real and sustainable chance of long term economic growth and the social advantages which come with it.

[cromwell]

Are you sure that was me?



I try not to insult leavers intelligence. I know several people I suspect (and in some cases know) voted leave, who are very intelligent.



In fact I've been quite vocal in several posts about how the (unambiguous) correlation between "lower" education level (as defined by obtaining a degree) and likelihood of voting leave is almost certainly not due to "leavers being stupid" but more a byproduct of the (again well known) correlation between age and likelihood of leave voting.

Yes I am and when you say things like this

The fact it didn't match your fantasy, because it never could, isn't our problem.

How else would you interpret it other than someone being rather stupid and believing in enchanted forests blah blah

[BeElBeeBub]

What was it you told me in a post not long ago,along the lines of "I've never insulted people who voted leave or their intelligence or mentioned unicorns enchanted forests etc"  Yeah course you haven't.

Are you sure that was me?



I try not to insult leavers intelligence. I know several people I suspect (and in some cases know) voted leave, who are very intelligent.



In fact I've been quite vocal in several posts about how the (unambiguous) correlation between "lower" education level (as defined by obtaining a degree) and likelihood of voting leave is almost certainly not due to "leavers being stupid" but more a byproduct of the (again well known) correlation between age and likelihood of leave voting.



On the other hand I have (and still do) used the phrase "unicorns" and the like to describe the package advertised by leave.



The vision sold by vote leave (and May afterwards) contained fundamental contradictions that have not and can not be resolved. It was a fantasy to believe that the UK could have "the exact same benefits of membership" without any of the obligations.



Can you imagine if Scotland left but expected the same benefits of access to the UK IM, FoM for Scots in England etc whilst also being free to make it's own trade deals and restricting English rights in Scotland?

[cromwell]

Your vote hasn't being ignored.



The entirety of the British government's attention has been devoted to brexit for 3 and a bit years.



May's deal, whilst crap, was a good deal better than I thought would be negotiated (the all UK backstop was a hair's breadth away from the goal of "cherry picking") but it wasn't enough for the hard brexiters, including Johnson, who rejected it.



Brexit was offered to you. The fact it didn't match your fantasy, because it never could, isn't our problem.



And if you never vote again - that's your choice.

What was it you told me in a post not long ago,along the lines of "I've never insulted people who voted leave or their intelligence or mentioned unicorns enchanted forests etc"  Yeah course you haven't.

[Churchill]

I do not share your opinion , my vote has been ignored along with over 17 million other peoples

[BeElBeeBub]

As they say be careful what you wish for,my vote is worth little or nothing now what will yours be worth in the future when and if yours is ignored

Your vote hasn't being ignored.



The entirety of the British government's attention has been devoted to brexit for 3 and a bit years.



May's deal, whilst crap, was a good deal better than I thought would be negotiated (the all UK backstop was a hair's breadth away from the goal of "cherry picking") but it wasn't enough for the hard brexiters, including Johnson, who rejected it.



Brexit was offered to you. The fact it didn't match your fantasy, because it never could, isn't our problem.



And if you never vote again - that's your choice.