The Lib Dems went wrong because they completely focussed on being the anti Brexit party. The vast majority of electors either voted for Brexit or wish the process to start a.s.a.p. Farron also fails to inspire, he comes over more as a scout leader than a leader of a UK political party.
The Tories lost Ed. They lost because they failed to achieve the goal which they set for an election which they called - the only justification given for loading another election (and the costs of it) on an already election weary population was to strengthen May's hand for the forthcoming EU. negotiations. She had already said that the loss of 6 seats in that scenario would be a defeat - she actually lost over double that.
No the Tories failed - they did not lose. Semantics but sometimes it is necessary. They won the election in terms of the number of votes and MPs where they gained most. They failed because they did not achieve their objective. In 2010 a similar result for the Tories was hailed as a great success.
The UK socialists are grateful for any crumbs of comfort. The expectations on the performance of the divided Labour Party were so low than anything better than annihilation has been considered 'victorious'.
That is indeed the Labour lie. The truth is that there was a global financial crisis. In the UK the position the government put the country in made it far worse than it needed to have been and far worse than many other countries. Under Blair Labour pledged to follow Tory economics - and it worked; but Brown was old Labour and when he got control he reverted to Labour "type" UK debt was very stable to 2006 but began to rise as soon as Brown took over and before the global crisis overwhelmed the UK However it is impossible to "prove" either the Labour or the alternative view. The reality is that no Labour government has ever left power without having had a financial and economic crisis.
I know it has been stated on here many times - but that does not make it correct. It certainly has not been "proved" by many economists. Labour economists have used statistics to try to prove it - that is all. Overall the Tories have always taken over from a Labour government that has ended in economic failure. it is the Tories that have always had to "mend" the economy and they usually do. Over time government has got bigger and its responsibilities have become greater so it is inevitable that spending will naturally increase. However take the last 7 years. Labour have said the Tories have presided over a massive increase in the debt. They have. However each year they have reduced the amount of borrowing - that is why we have all suffered and is why austerity hurts. Had it not been reduced and stayed at the level of £150b as it was in Labour's last year then it would now be about 2.4 trillion - several hundred billions higher than it is. To lay the blame for this on the Tories is amusing. With austerity the annual debt has reduced to £50b from £150b - and naturally that has hurt (about £43b is interest on the debt). Without austerity the debt would have stayed at £150b annually and would now be well over £2 trillion. You cannot have both. So people have to decide which they wanted.
This is the kind of simple economics that should be used to educate the starry eyed young who believe in Corbyn's imaginary money tree.
The problem for the UK is that taxation is too low to pay for what people want and need. Until people are prepared to pay more in taxes they cannot have everything they want. That means basic income tax too. It is a myth that much more will be gained by squeezing the rich - although I happen to think a 50% tax on incomes over £80k is fair. It is not enough. Corporation tax take would not increase if we went back to a 26% rate. What would happen is that companies would seek to offset the increase and part of that would be lower wages and less employment. Personally I believe the current rate is low enough though and do not agree with lowering it further. In fact although the Tories made a huge hash of it they were not far wrong on Social Care. It needs to be addressed. I would add another tax - like National Insurance but called Social and Welfare Insurance. I would levy it on employees and employers - it would be ring fenced for spend on social care. It would be like a pension or life insurance premium. We would all pay into it during our lifetime and like a pension it would be there to pay for care for people who needed it due to age, health or disability. It is not right to leave the cost to people who become in need of it as the costs are massive - but if we all helped build up the pot to take from later in life it would be affordable.
Not Labour economists Ed. These are 2 quotes from an IMF study: ''The increase in inequality engendered by financial openness and austerity might itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neoliberal agenda is intent on boosting. There is strong evidence that inequality can significantly lower both the level and durability of growth'' ''It's time for the chancellor (In this case Osborne) to listen to the experts, change course and put an end to his failed policy of austerity with a solid commitment by government to deliver an industrial strategy backed up by patient investment to create the high tech, high-wage economy of the future''. This study from the IMF economists is not unique - most modern economists now agree that the neoliberalism of the Hayek school is discredited, and refer back to a more Keynesian model which stressed the importance of sustainable growth only being based upon the increase of spending power by consumers.
Well you could increase NI or add a % on income tax like the LibDems proposed a penny in the £.. etc I have no issue with that myself.....
May's two ill advised advisers have resigned after senior Tories demanded they be sacked or she would have faced a leadership challenge on Monday. They don't mess about these Tories, it just shows how badly the dithering and failed Labour leadership crisis was handled.
About 2% behind in votes resulting in, what, 50 less seats. That says more about the injustice of our electoral system than it does about Corbyn and the Labour Party performance. Bearing in mind the influence of the non-Dom right wing press and a distinct lack of political non-bias from t.v. I think it has been a remarkable achievement by such a pilloried an left wing candidate and manifesto.
The only current injustice is that Labour have electoral boundaries in their favour, this anomaly will hopefully be correct very soon. I'm pleased a third Labour defeat in a row is being described as remarkable.
Many uncouth Scots booing God Save the Queen, you would have thought they would be grateful for the lorry loads of cash the English send up there annually.
Like so many others, I'm not going to bother. Suffice to say that when a 2% majority results in 50 more seats I think it's abundantly clear which party benefits from the current boundaries. Further gerrymandering is patently not required.
May will face backbench 1922 committee at 5pm tomorrow. Senior Tory tells me: "she needs to give a barnstorming performance to survive". This meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, so she is under real pressure now from her backbenchers.
