General Election

[idler]

I find it fascinating how so many people are determined to ignore the role of the EU in maintaining peace and democracy across a continent that has been riven by instability and friction for centuries.

Of course NATO also played a big role. But it didn't stop civil wars going on inside large parts of NATO states, like the UK and Spain. It didn't stop fascist military dictators seizing power in coups in Greece and Portugal when they were NATO members.

The entire purpose of the EU from its start was to make the countries of Europe realise that they had so much more to gain by collaborative neighbourliness than by fighting every other generation. In that it has been an astonishing success.

Why do you think Putin's number 1 aim is to weaken the EU?

Putin has made it clear that he doesn't give a fig about the EU. NATO is the issue.

Putin also made it clear that he had no intention of invading Ukraine.

[BillyStubbsTears]

He doesn't give a fig about the EU?

That's a gem.

I assume he funded Leave.EU and Salvini and Le Pen and AfD just because he thinks they'd be better for their countries then!

[TonySoprano]

He doesn't give a fig about the EU?

That's a gem.

I assume he funded Leave.EU and Salvini and Le Pen and AfD just because he thinks they'd be better for their countries then!

Give over with your conspiracy theories! 

[Sprotyrover]

He doesn't give a fig about the EU?

That's a gem.

I assume he funded Leave.EU and Salvini and Le Pen and AfD just because he thinks they'd be better for their countries then!

FASCISTS,RACISTS,RACISTS!!! It’s like listens to that old buddy sat in the Armchair in Father Teds House!

[Branton Red]

No two democracies have ever been at war with one another. In Europe. In the world. Ever.

Democracy is the key that underpins our peace and prosperity.

The main player in ensuring peace in Western Europe over the last 80 years is the United States of America. No question.

No USA no NATO - and an almost certain Soviet invasion mid 20th Century.

No USA no EU. The USA were the diplomatic midwives of the EEC/EU - and it's insistence that only democracies could participate in it's free trade area.

Also the USA used it's financial might to support Western democracies (in particular West Germany and Japan hence their rise at economic heavyweights) to ensure Democracy won the cold war over Communism.

Since the fall of the USSR the USA has taken it's eye of the ball on promoting global democracy. Hence why we're living in increasingly worrying times globally

Failing to bring Russia into the tent of free, democratic nations when it had the chance in the 1990s (as it did with West Germany and Japan).

Cosying up to China, and thereby massively increasing Chinese wealth and global influence, to take advantage of it's huge population for cheap labour for short term economic gain.

Standing idly by whilst Europe puts in place treaties which slowly abandon democracy and centralise power which risks the rise of Nationalism and extremism on the continent.

Any civilisation which embraces democracy ultimately benefits in terms of peace and prosperity - as Western Europe has done in the last 80 years largely thanks to US intervention.

But civilisations which abandon democracy only go backward in terms of internal strife, security and prosperity. We're seeing the start of that decline now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.

But let me get this straight.

Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?

Really?

[Branton Red]

Branton.

I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.

But let me get this straight.

Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?

Really?

Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.

The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored

[DonnyOsmond]

spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive

Sounds like socialist Venezuela.

If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.

You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.”  - Adam Smith.

Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.

Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.

Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*

Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.

*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?

I'm gonna use this as an opportunity to talk philosophy.

Depends on the level of socialism... The Nordic countries for a long time have been Social Democracies which are capitalist but have a lot of socialist policies, a welfare state. Social Democrats are what Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are. WeThey usually show on most polls as the happiest, healthiest, etc countries in the world.

Extremes on either side don't work.
True communism probably requires dictatorship to meet it's aims and then is open by governments to be corrupt.
Socialism sounds good in principle but isn't really open to meritocracy or the creativity capitalism brings.
Capitalism fails as we've seen in this country over the last decade due to funneling upwards and services becoming unobtainable to normal folk, whilst exploiting the workers, which we see more in the US.

The only feasible option that's good for all people in a country is the middle ground, social democracy, which promotes meritocracy, freedom, creativity and make sure citizens have their basic needs met with healthcare, housing, food, etc.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.

But let me get this straight.

Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?

Really?

Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.

The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored

And the EU was an entirely American project?

[Branton Red]

Branton.

I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.

But let me get this straight.

Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?

Really?

Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.

The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored

And the EU was an entirely American project?

There's very little point in having a discussion/sensible debate if you insist on a) ignoring what I write or b) misrepresenting what I write.

No the EEC was not an entirely American project. But they had a major diplomatic influence on it's set up and founding principles.

The US learnt the lesson of Versaille with regards to not treating West Germany as a pariah state. They were genuinely fearlful of the whole of Germany falling to Communism and slipping behind the iron curtain.

Western Europe was on it's knees economically. The US had significant economic power to diplomatically insist that West Germany's neighbours did not treat them as pariahs (as would understandably be their first instinct) but trade with and enter trade agreements with them. Under terms that matched the USA's vision - of a democratic, peaceful Western Europe.

[danumdon]

Branton.

I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.

But let me get this straight.

Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?

Really?

Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.

The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored

And the EU was an entirely American project?

There's very little point in having a discussion/sensible debate if you insist on a) ignoring what I write or b) misrepresenting what I write.

No the EEC was not an entirely American project. But they had a major diplomatic influence on it's set up and founding principles.

The US learnt the lesson of Versaille with regards to not treating West Germany as a pariah state. They were genuinely fearlful of the whole of Germany falling to Communism and slipping behind the iron curtain.

Western Europe was on it's knees economically. The US had significant economic power to diplomatically insist that West Germany's neighbours did not treat them as pariahs (as would understandably be their first instinct) but trade with and enter trade agreements with them. Under terms that matched the USA's vision - of a democratic, peaceful Western Europe.

I'm glad someone else has noticed this trait, happens on far too many occasions.

You could say it verge's on hysterical blind faith and an inflexible mind that's not prepared to acknowledge other solutions that don't match its own.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BR.

OK, let's clarify.

Do you think the EU was PREDOMINANTLY a US-driven project?

And do you think the EU, whatever the nature of its birth, was vital in cementing democracy across a continent in which the overwhelming majority of nations had been ruled by non-democracies in the previous few decades?

Or, are you saying democracy would have been established across Europe WITHOUT the EU?

[Branton Red]

BR.

OK, let's clarify.

Do you think the EU was PREDOMINANTLY a US-driven project?

And do you think the EU, whatever the nature of its birth, was vital in cementing democracy across a continent in which the overwhelming majority of nations had been ruled by non-democracies in the previous few decades?

Or, are you saying democracy would have been established across Europe WITHOUT the EU?

I find it a bit bizarre that you're repeating the exact same questions, did you not believe my answers first time round? But for clarity: -

No - but to repeat myself they had a major diplomatic influence on it's set up and founding principles.

Yes - to repeat myself due to it's insistence that only democracies could participate in it's free trade area.

No - where have I said or even inferred anything of the sort?!

Stating that US foreign policy has had a major impact on ensuring Western European peace doesn't mean I don't think the EEC played an important role too. They're not mutually exclusive opinions.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yep, ok. I disagree about the extent that the EU was a child of American policy, and how much it was driven by European policymakers. I also disagree on the extent to which America dictated membership terms. But I don't disagree that peace and democracy in Europe is the result of both American involvement and the EU.

Apologies if I misread your meaning.

[SydneyRover]

no wonder the tories are struggling with their campaign, they are all down at the bookies

[SydneyRover]

Is there no end to this, oh yes july 4.

''Tory MPs paid £100,000 of public funds to party’s in-house web designers
Exclusive: Conservatives including Hunt and Truss used Bluetree for websites and claimed costs as expenses''

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/23/tory-mps-paid-100000-of-public-funds-to-partys-in-house-web-designers

[Glyn_Wigley]

No two democracies have ever been at war with one another. In Europe. In the world. Ever.

Somebody obviously doesn't watch QI. They shot this crap down in flames years ago.

[albie]

FT summary of the various analyses of the Labour budget possibilities;
https://archive.ph/IRBPy

Some heroic assumptions without revenue raising measures to increase financial headroom.
Retaining Tory commitments makes little sense in this context.

Growth depends upon the up front investment from the public purse, difficult to see how it can happen at scale without that spending.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And once again.

Reeves had said explicitly that they will invest in publicly funded capital infrastructure.

How many times are you going to ignore that?

[danumdon]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

   

[drfchound]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

 

I heard that on the lunchtime news dd.
No doubt that their statement will be discredited.

[SydneyRover]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?

[drfchound]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?

The IFS report is looking forward, not back.
Something we should all be doing.

[danumdon]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?

Paul Johnson is basically talking about the evidence he has in front of him.

What it tells him is that none of them have produced a trueful and fully costed plan to take the country forward.

He's not bothered about what's been and gone, he's dealt with that on a number of occasions, funnily enough quite a few on here hung on his every word when it was admonishing the last government. He's interested in the future, like we all are.

The sad fact is that the future is going to resemble the past very closely, he's not the only one to think so.

We have nothing to look forward to, only more spin, deceit and fantasy.

[SydneyRover]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?

Paul Johnson is basically talking about the evidence he has in front of him.

What it tells him is that none of them have produced a trueful and fully costed plan to take the country forward.

He's not bothered about what's been and gone, he's dealt with that on a number of occasions, funnily enough quite a few on here hung on his every word when it was admonishing the last government. He's interested in the future, like we all are.

The sad fact is that the future is going to resemble the past very closely, he's not the only one to think so.

We have nothing to look forward to, only more spin, deceit and fantasy.

When you want to look to the future, look at past records and that will give a good indication of habits, traits and what to expect. As you have a habit of dismissing the excellent position of the NHS and any other number of things labour had achieved I expect you to ignore the facts once again and probably every occasion you comment on that right up to the election.

[SydneyRover]

''Tories are a ‘shower of shit’, says Conservative candidate James Cracknell
Former Olympian standing in Colchester adds: ‘If one of my teammates got caught for cheating they’d be dead to me''

From someone whom should know ..............

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/tories-are-a-shower-of-shit-says-conservative-candidate-james-cracknell

[albie]

And once again.

Reeves had said explicitly that they will invest in publicly funded capital infrastructure.

How many times are you going to ignore that?

And once again, BST,

I have not ignored what Nanny Plum Reeves has said, and it is taken into account in the FT summaries,(post 1038 above).

The plain fact is that Reeves cannot expend additional Capex on infrastructure without creating a further demand for financial support for ongoing maintenance.
This latter category is subject to her silly 5 year debt reduction rule, which runs counter to her declared Capex intention.

This is just how it is, unless Labour exceed expectations in relation to growth and provide additional financial headroom that way.
No-one is optimistic about the chances of that.

[Branton Red]

No two democracies have ever been at war with one another. In Europe. In the world. Ever.

Somebody obviously doesn't watch QI. They shot this crap down in flames years ago.

Somebody obviously bases their acquired knowledge on popular TV shows.

You are incorrect based on your QI episode - as far as my above statement is concerned.

Based on the common definition of "democracy" and me stating "at war".

QI (I did watch the episode but had to go back to remind myself) quoted 3 instances: -

1) UK-Finish war 1941. The Soviet Union invaded Finland so Finland declared war on all the Soviet Union's allies including the UK. Clearly an incidental war.

No military action was taken by Finland against the UK. The UK carried out 1 raid on a Finnish port but that was before War was declared (and not a reason for it).

Two countries are hardly "at war" if they are not fighting each other.

2) The Anglo-Dutch War in the 18th Century.

No sensible historian would consider 18th Century Great Britain a democracy. Only a tiny fraction of the population could vote. So that clearly rules that one out.

3) The Football War between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. Violence which started after a world cup qualifier between both countries' teams.

Neither countries' Government had control over their own military - essentially meaning they were military dictatorships rather than democracies. It was the military on both sides which escalated the violence started by football hooligans.

The fighting lasted only 4 days.

In reality it was 2 sets of military thugs acting off their own bat.

Oh and don't be so rude re "crap" - totally unnecessary.

[danumdon]

Politicians say many things when in election mode.

"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS

Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.

As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."

Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?

Paul Johnson is basically talking about the evidence he has in front of him.

What it tells him is that none of them have produced a trueful and fully costed plan to take the country forward.

He's not bothered about what's been and gone, he's dealt with that on a number of occasions, funnily enough quite a few on here hung on his every word when it was admonishing the last government. He's interested in the future, like we all are.

The sad fact is that the future is going to resemble the past very closely, he's not the only one to think so.

We have nothing to look forward to, only more spin, deceit and fantasy.

When you want to look to the future, look at past records and that will give a good indication of habits, traits and what to expect. As you have a habit of dismissing the excellent position of the NHS and any other number of things labour had achieved I expect you to ignore the facts once again and probably every occasion you comment on that right up to the election.

IFS have looked to the past, present and future, and in their opinion,


"The UK’s two main parties have set out plans to improve public services that are “essentially unfunded”, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said on Monday.

In a scathing verdict on the Labour and Conservative manifestos, the think-tank said the parties had “hidden and ducked” the hard economic choices ahead, despite claiming their tax and public spending plans were “fully costed”.

“Regardless of who takes office . . . they will — unless they get lucky — soon face a stark choice,” said Paul Johnson, IFS director. “Raise taxes by more than they have told us in their manifesto. Or implement cuts to some areas of spending. Or borrow more and be content for debt to rise for longer.”

“On 4 July, we will be voting in a knowledge vacuum,” he added.

The damning account of the economic dilemma facing both parties comes as the election campaign enters its final stretch. Labour is widely expected to win next week, while the Tory party’s struggling campaign has been dealt a further blow by a spiralling betting scandal.

The IFS said both parties had pledged debt would be falling in five years’ time, while also entering a “tax lock arms race”, competing with each other to rule out many of the ways in which they might raise extra revenue.

“These tax locks are a mistake,” Johnson said. “They will constrain policy if a future government decides that it does in fact want to raise more money to fund public services. They also put serious constraints on tax reform.”

Helen Miller, IFS deputy director, said that if a Labour government wanted to raise “big money” in the areas where it had not yet ruled out changes, it would need to make politically difficult reforms to capital gains tax, which could discourage investment.

A Labour spokesperson said: “While we’re under no illusions about the scale of the challenge we’d inherit if elected, we don’t accept that the economy can’t be better than it is now under the Tories.”

They added that the party’s manifesto was “a fully funded plan to change the country and offer economic stability”.

Labour’s campaign has focused heavily on its plan to bolster the public finances through reforms to raise economic growth, a claim the IFS called into question.

The body estimated the government could avoid £30bn of spending cuts if the Office for Budget Responsibility upgraded its forecast for UK GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points.

However, it added the OBR’s forecast was already more optimistic than most, and luck could just as easily turn against the new government.

“Good policymaking can boost growth but it certainly can’t do it quickly,” said Carl Emmerson, IFS deputy director.


The IFS described Labour’s manifesto commitments to new public service spending — for example, on teacher recruitment and school breakfast clubs — as “trivial”.

But it added that the party’s biggest pledge, to boost green investment by £5bn a year, would still leave public sector net investment falling.

The IFS said both parties promised to cut NHS waiting times, deliver an ambitious expansion of the NHS workforce and build more hospitals, as well as tackling crime, without allocating new money.

“These ‘fully costed’ manifestos appear to imply all this can be delivered for free. It can’t,” Johnson said.

Implementing the NHS workforce plan could require extra funding equivalent to 3.6 per cent of national income per year. Both parties also aspire to increase defence spending and have promised to maintain schools spending in real terms, while funding new childcare entitlements.

This implies steep cuts to unprotected areas of spending, such as courts, prisons and local government — equivalent to £9bn a year by 2028 under Labour’s plans and £18bn a year under Conservative plans, the IFS said.

The IFS also criticised pledges by Reform UK and the Green party, saying they had made “unattainable” claims on tax and were helping to “poison the entire political debate”.

[SydneyRover]

Strange dd, I'm talking about you not what a think tank is writing about although I do respect what they say, it's your version of reality I do not accept, that fact that you in turn will not accept that labour when in power have largely run the country well and left the economy in a better place than when the tories run the same country.

The undeniable fact is that for over 14 years (and before that) the tories have run the country and it's services into the ground, fomented racial troubles, trashed the gfa and used their money, power and position to pitch people against each other for their own benefit.