Nothing to do with the opinion that the Conservatives are the more sensible option when it comes to the economy. You can argue about the impact of that on the less privileged.
There's no conclusive evidence that austerity has caused 100,000 deaths. The Conservatives have been very poor on mental health in my opinion which is underfunded, hopefully this changes!
Spending without context means absolutely nothing.
If you look at the last Lib Dem MANIFESTO, there is plenty of stuff in there that would appeal to left wingers.
And the rise of who, exactly?
There is no common sense, otherwise the Uk wouldn't be in this mess. The financial settlement thing is also common sense, it's just what the UK owe when they leave but it's the easiest thing to focus on by the Leavers and the Media to beat the EU with.
Another one who doesn't understand the difference between total spending and spending as a percentage of GDP, and probably not between debt and deficit either.
Doesn't sound like me - proof?
Too many politicians from all parties are ignoring the outright lies and criminal activities of the leave campaigns which played a huge part in tilting the result to a very narrow victory.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No one's ignoring the result of the referendum what utter trash. A deal has been achieved on instruction of the referendum and remainers want the public to confirm they actually want the outcome now it's clear what it looks like.
A manifesto policy consists of a huge number of changes which are comparably much much smaller than Brexit, have less impact and are easily reversible by the next government.
I agree that most manifesto policies are not of the same magnitude.
On the contrary , always blame the people. If a person's prejudices have been used by a politician to further their career then more fool them. Brexit for example will be entirely the fault of the people if it all goes to pot, they didn't have to listen to Farage and Johnson.
Not respect the result? The govt triggered article 50 and negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Eu. The brexiters didn’t like the WA and so it didn’t get thru parliament. Blame your mate Rees Mogg.
You're conflating the common sense of the electorate with political common sense. Politically speaking nothing thus far has gone against the principles of common sense. It was politically common sense for David Cameron to have a referendum in his manifesto, as it's arguable that he would not have won the election without it.
Another referendum on *how* we leave? Yeah sure. But remain as we are should not be on the ballot. The majority voted to leave in whatever guise. The question was clear enough. We voted out.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say except, the monetary settlement is peanuts in the grand scheme of things and the government know it. The EU knew what they were doing when they set the order of the timetable and they'd guessed correctly the attitude of the UK government's negotiating stance.
Not really. They are pitching themselves at Remain voters who might also be Labour voters - taking a strong stand against Brexit is the priority. Their record in government is going to be a secondary consideration while the country is on fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report
And your reason for believe there will be more funding, considering the last decade ?
I see the point although I'm not sure it'd be practical given where we are now (rather than where we were 3 years ago). But even if it is was, there needs to be a soft brexit option around which a possible consensus could be formed and to which 'the 48% loser's consent' might be given. If it's not too late for that.
Where are getting this from ?
I am not disputing that, but if there was no Brexit, then it would not have to continue for so long and other more pressing matters would have been concentrated on than this bollocks waste of time shit.
If there was a change of government maybe but Brexit or not, if it's a conservative government then we are getting austerity(In fact austerity really is a more european thing, what the UK has been through is plain and simple class war).
She genuinely manages to use some variation of 'Scotland' five times in the first two sentences. With Burns Day and St Andrew's Day thrown in during the first paragraph for good measure.
Austerity was a response to the financial crisis though. The wrong response, arguably, but that was the context.
And a good argument that by leaving the EU austerity will be considerably worse because no matter if it's the Tories or Labour the UK are going to be seriously short of money.
Even if there were such an option on the ballot paper would it be any less of a pork pie than those spouted by the Brexiteers. Unless of course remainers really do believe that the EU will neither enlarge, develop or evolve further in the foreseeable future. And if the answer to that is a resounding no then have not the electorate the right to know exactly how the EU intends to change or are the leaders of the EU exempt from being held to the same level of scrutiny as we are expecting from our own politicians? Just a thought as it is a conundrum that puzzles me.
You didn't read my first post properly, so I tried to clarify it for you, but you didn't read my clarification properly either.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
Countries literally have vetoes on new member states joining, if Britain doesn't want it to enlarge then it doesn't have to; indeed our exit makes that more likely.
Really? Is that why we ended up with austerity? Even if your premise of "it was all Labour's fault" is accepted, and that's an oversimplification to put it mildly, austerity was only one of several options. Which resulted in sharp increases in the national deficit since implementation and just happened to conveniently align to the ideological desire to shrink the state of the Tories.
Johnson just lied himself to the top of the UK. If EU officials receive the same level of scrutiny as the British political class then the EU project is doomed. Because it seems anyone can become PM these days, even failed journalists. And the journalists of the day ironically see nothing wrong with a PM who invented stories as a journalist... wonder why.
