All things Labour Party

[Trader]

And yet all we ever hear for the last three years are economic arguments to remain in the EU.

 

Exactly why leave won - a majority of people thought the economic risk (even if they believed all the Projects Fear) was worth it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Exactly why leave won - a majority of people thought the economic risk (even if they believed all the Projects Fear) was worth it.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Some things are more important than money. I'm sure a lot of independent countries would been better off staying within a British Empire, did economics even enter their minds. I've never understood why The Sweaties got so hung up with currency, oil prices and economics, surely you either believe in an independent Jock land or you don't. Who says " I believe in Scotland being independent , provided it doesn't cost me money". Hardly Braveheart is it?

[shurlock]

Fascinating insight about why Labour lost the election from someone who knows his stuff:

 

 

This same fella

 

https://unherd.com/2019/01/corbynomics-winning-britain-2/?=refinnar

 

A lot of hindsight on here today.

[shurlock]

Who are ‘most’?

 

ITK people I knew at the time pal.

 

FWIW, this was from the Spectator in August 2017. And compared to the summer of 2016, the political winds were infinitely more favourable to him.

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/boris-johnson-has-returned-to-the-political-wilderness/

[Weston Super Saint]

It depends on your views. I would say you and a few other posters here are right wing, wouldn’t you. Some may have voted against Labour because of Corbyn, but there are a few of you that are hard core Tories.

 

Then, once again, you would be wrong!

 

I've already stated that I didn't trust any of the parties to do what is best for me so didn't vote for any of them. Frankly, I'm not a 'die-hard' anything.

[shurlock]

Then, once again, you would be wrong!

 

I've already stated that I didn't trust any of the parties to do what is best for me so didn't vote for any of them. Frankly, I'm not a 'die-hard' anything.

 

It doesn't follow that just because you didn't trust or vote for any of the parties that you don't hold right (or left) wing views. A nonsequitur there, little Westie.

[revolution saint]

Spot on.

 

Some things are more important than money. I'm sure a lot of independent countries would been better off staying within a British Empire, did economics even enter their minds. I've never understood why The Sweaties got so hung up with currency, oil prices and economics, surely you either believe in an independent Jock land or you don't. Who says " I believe in Scotland being independent , provided it doesn't cost me money". Hardly Braveheart is it?

 

Hold on, hold on. The Brexit argument was that we would also be better off. No money being paid to the EU, better trade deals etc etc etc - anyone who said otherwise was all part of "Project Fear". You don't get to start some things are more important than money - if we're not better off after leaving the EU then we were sold a slogan on the back of lies.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You don't get to start some things are more important than money .

 

You don’t get to start telling me why I voted a particular way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[revolution saint]

You don’t get to start telling me why I voted a particular way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Care to come up with some kind of answer - IE you do believe we'll be better off - or that you now think that sovereignty is more important than wealth? Or perhaps you'll bottle it and fail to answer as per usual.

[shurlock]

Hold on, hold on. The Brexit argument was that we would also be better off. No money being paid to the EU, better trade deals etc etc etc - anyone who said otherwise was all part of "Project Fear". You don't get to start some things are more important than money - if we're not better off after leaving the EU then we were sold a slogan on the back of lies.

 

Exactly right. If the £350m for the NHS line on a Brexit bus wasn't appealing to economics, I don't know what was. Nor can the take back control line be separated from economics. Its hard to be genuinely free, sovereign or strike out on your own if you don't have enough have money - that applies as much to individuals as it does to countries. Never mind the Brexit thread is full of arguments about an economically dysfunctional EU and the wonderful trading opportunities that lie outside it.

 

Economic and cultural security are fundamentally entwined - some go so far as to argue that economic insecurity leads to a greater demand for cultural security. Historically, it's no coincidence that a backlash against diversity, tolerance and openness has coincided with periods of relative economic stagnation. See Benjamin Friedman https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_moral_consequences_of_economic_growth_0.pdf.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying economics or material factors totally subsume culture just that they are not irrelevant either and that talk of binary either/ors does more to obscure than illuminate.

Edited 23 December, 2019 by shurlock

[hypochondriac]

Care to come up with some kind of answer - IE you do believe we'll be better off - or that you now think that sovereignty is more important than wealth? Or perhaps you'll bottle it and fail to answer as per usual.

I never thought we would be better off economically.

[shurlock]

FWIW my jewish mates didn't think we'd better off economically.

[aintforever]

Spot on.

 

Some things are more important than money.

 

LOL, that’s a first, coming from a Tory.

 

It’s you ****s who cry like a bunch of babies at the thought of paying a bit more tax to stop people dying on trollies in hospital corridors.

[hypochondriac]

LOL, that’s a first, coming from a Tory.

 

It’s you ****s who cry like a bunch of babies at the thought of paying a bit more tax to stop people dying on trollies in hospital corridors.

If you think that was what the election boiled down to then no wonder Labour lost so spectacularly.

[Wes Tender]

Pony. Most thought he had blown his chances in 2016 after Gove stabbed him in the back. Had May not called a GE in 2017 and/or not proceeded to run a terrible campaign, blowing a historic lead, she would have had the numbers to get her withdrawal agreement over the line and Johnson would have been history.

 

Alternatively she could have crossed her own redlines -like Johnson shamelessly has done- and put a regulatory and customs border in the Irish numbers, likely securing the support of the ERG. Or she could have worked with Parliament from the outset and secured cross-party support for a deal. In any of these circumstances, the case for Johnson would have been much weaker.

 

It is pie in the sky making assumptions about whether May would have managed to get her WA over the line had she not blown the 2017 GE. She did not have a large majority post Cameron, and the party contained a large percentage of MPs who voted remain in the referendum. May then surrounded herself with them in her cabinet, which was a bad mistake. Losing the election in 2017 was only a part of May's total uselessness. She was a remoaner who proved given time that what she wanted was a soft Brexit in name only. She made the right noises in her Lancaster House speech shortly after she was elected leader, but then had begun to wobble by Florence and went totally towards full surrender by the time she got to her Chequers fiasco. Boris was her likely successor after that, and her Withdrawal Agreement was dead in the water from the time of his and Davis' resignation which reflected the anger and disgust in the Party over her complete incompetence in the negotiations thus far. Your assertion that the ERG would have supported that, or any fudge of it is nonsense. Equally nonsensical is the belief that a stitch up with Labour including remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market was an option.

 

You really have very little idea of Conservative Party politics. Stick to what you know, Gavyn.

 

Anyway, what's the point in raking over old coals with whataboutery? It's all water under the bridge. We've moved on; so should you.

[aintforever]

If you think that was what the election boiled down to then no wonder Labour lost so spectacularly.

 

How does what I think effect the outcome of an election?

 

Weirdo

[shurlock]

It is pie in the sky making assumptions about whether May would have managed to get her WA over the line had she not blown the 2017 GE. She did not have a large majority post Cameron, and the party contained a large percentage of MPs who voted remain in the referendum. May then surrounded herself with them in her cabinet, which was a bad mistake. Losing the election in 2017 was only a part of May's total uselessness. She was a remoaner who proved given time that what she wanted was a soft Brexit in name only. She made the right noises in her Lancaster House speech shortly after she was elected leader, but then had begun to wobble by Florence and went totally towards full surrender by the time she got to her Chequers fiasco. Boris was her likely successor after that, and her Withdrawal Agreement was dead in the water from the time of his and Davis' resignation which reflected the anger and disgust in the Party over her complete incompetence in the negotiations thus far. Your assertion that the ERG would have supported that, or any fudge of it is nonsense. Equally nonsensical is the belief that a stitch up with Labour including remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market was an option.

 

You really have very little idea of Conservative Party politics. Stick to what you know, Gavyn.

 

Anyway, what's the point in raking over old coals with whataboutery? It's all water under the bridge. We've moved on; so should you.

 

Calm down Les.

 

Raking over old coals - perhaps don’t jump into others conversation without any context then. As for your points, it’s your usual par for the course drivel and misunderstanding. I suspect if May hadn’t called and botched the 2017 GE which had nowt to do with Brexit (she was still the hardliner back then), we would have ended up with something like we have today i.e. a NI frontstop (remember she initially agreed it with the EU). It was only because she lost her majority and made the DUP critical to her government’s survival that she was forced ditch the idea.

 

Anyway that is only of passing relevance to the original conversation regarding Johnson’s future back in 2016 -and let’s not forget everyone (well dopey Brexiters like you) thought the negotiations would be a piece of pîss. Finally a word of advice: if you don’t like a conversation, perhaps stick to your own - there’s one on another thread awaiting a response pal

Edited 23 December, 2019 by shurlock

[hypochondriac]

How does what I think effect the outcome of an election?

 

Weirdo

Because you're symptomatic of the type of people on the left who demonise people as voting Tory simply because they didn't want to pay a little bit extra to help the poor.

 

Weirdo.

[aintforever]

Because you're symptomatic of the type of people on the left who demonise people as voting Tory simply because they didn't want to pay a little bit extra to help the poor.

 

Weirdo.

 

I don’t think it’s weird, I just despise the greed and selfishness and see conservatism as a movement for both. I find it depressing to live in a society that values having the latest iPhone or Range Rover over caring for the most unfortunate and vulnerable. That’s just my opinion.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Care to come up with some kind of answer - IE you do believe we'll be better off - or that you now think that sovereignty is more important than wealth? Or perhaps you'll bottle it and fail to answer as per usual.

 

Most people would of worked out my answer by just reading my post. However, as you’re clearly struggling I’ll answer.

 

Whether I think we’ll be better off or not is irrelevant, post Maastricht I’d vote to leave regardless. Sovereignty issues can’t be judged by GDP, it’s bizarre anyone thinks it can be. Would Mexican’s or Canadian’s sell theirs to The US if it meant a higher GDP & wealthier population?

 

 

Personally , I don’t think leaving will make much difference to the average Joe, but as I said that’s irrelevant.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don’t think it’s weird, I just despise the greed and selfishness and see conservatism as a movement for both. I find it depressing to live in a society that values having the latest iPhone or Range Rover over caring for the most unfortunate and vulnerable. That’s just my opinion.

 

Have you ever considered that some people care about the unfortunate & vulnerable just as much as you do, but just disagree on the best way to do so. I reckon soft arsed lefties like you want the latest iPhone just as much as any Tory does.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Batman]

One thing is for sure, the Labour Party will remain dead if the likes of Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones continue to be main cheer leaders!

[hypochondriac]

Have you ever considered that some people care about the unfortunate & vulnerable just as much as you do, but just disagree on the best way to do so. I reckon soft arsed lefties like you want the latest iPhone just as much as any Tory does.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Probably more. Without the iPhone they wouldn't be able to virtue signal to the twittersphere.

[hypochondriac]

One thing is for sure, the Labour Party will remain dead if the likes of Ash Sarkar and Owen Jones continue to be main cheer leaders!

You mean Ash "literally a communist" Sarkar and Owen "will suck **** for Socialism" Jones? But you know at least they aren't heartless monsters like all those people who voted Tory so there's that.

[hypochondriac]

I don’t think it’s weird, I just despise the greed and selfishness and see conservatism as a movement for both. I find it depressing to live in a society that values having the latest iPhone or Range Rover over caring for the most unfortunate and vulnerable. That’s just my opinion.

Do you think that Tory voters were a lot more greedy and selfish at this election given how many more voted Conservative than previous elections? Or do you think it was less black and white than that?

[aintforever]

Have you ever considered that some people care about the unfortunate & vulnerable just as much as you do, but just disagree on the best way to do so. I reckon soft arsed lefties like you want the latest iPhone just as much as any Tory does.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That’s just Tory bull**** IMO. Decent public services mean paying a bit more tax - when asked to do so some say OK, others scream “Venezuela”.

[badgerx16]

Using that logic, which government in British history has won with over 50% of the vote?

None, which shows precisely how 'democratic' our electoral system is.

[Crab Lungs]

You're literally p1ssing in the wind if you're trying to reason with the hard-left on this thread.

 

They're as thick as mince.

[whelk]

You're literally p1ssing in the wind if you're trying to reason with the hard-left on this thread.

 

They're as thick as mince.

 

Thick people quite often misuse ‘literally’.

 

And write ‘would of’ because it sounds right

[Fan The Flames]

Finally someone gets it.

 

People in general care more about cultural security than economic security.

 

No way, people ultimately care more about economic security and the vote for Brexit and Boris illustrates that. Globalisation, the shrinking of tradition work sectors, casualisation of work, pay falling behind and European immigration has created insecurity added to the mix is rising house prices, rip off landlords and cost of further education.

 

The country has had wave after wave of immigration; Irish, Caribbean, Indian subcontinent, African, Eastern European and we have reluctantly accepted them all until the Eastern European influx. This was because the others were unskilled and did jobs that didn't threaten the home population, they were employed in jobs people didn't want to do, they also found it difficult to get hired by home companies. Then the Eastern Europeans came with more skills, a good work ethic and a skin colour that was more palatable. It's not because of a few Polish shops or sauerkraut in Morrisons.

 

We don't have cultural insecurities, we love curry houses, Chinese and kebabs, our kids listen to urban black music, one of the big nights out is Paddy's day, we don't give a **** about St Georges day, we had our hair cut for years by Italians, Turks and Kurds, we use Americanism in our language. There are loads of stuff that we have just assimilated into our lives.

 

Normally after austerity people vote for change and in this instance Boris offered that, although he is from the same party as those in charge for a difficult decade because this was preferred to the other change offered by Corbyn. People were fearful of their spending plans, perceived taxation but more importantly their houses. There was a fear that Corbyn was coming for our houses, amougst all the **** at least we have the equity we have built up, at least we have something for a rainy day or to leave our children. There was nothing cultural about this vote.

 

Our lives are changing but the cultural stuff is at the fringe of our lives, it's the economic stuff that's at the core and this is what people have reacted too. To say otherwise is ideological nonsense.

[hypochondriac]

That’s just Tory bull**** IMO. Decent public services mean paying a bit more tax - when asked to do so some say OK, others scream “Venezuela”.

Yes that's exactly what happened wasn't it. You're deluded if you seriously think that was reality.

[Crab Lungs]

Thick people quite often misuse ‘literally’.

 

And write ‘would of’ because it sounds right

 

Thicker than Dianne Abbott?

 

Mince.

[sadoldgit]

Have you ever considered that some people care about the unfortunate & vulnerable just as much as you do, but just disagree on the best way to do so. I reckon soft arsed lefties like you want the latest iPhone just as much as any Tory does.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think what “soft arse lefties” want us the end of food banks, child poverty, austerity, under founded public services etc. You know, the stuff that grew under the government that you support. If you lot cared about that stuff it would not have happened. But you really don’t and it did.

[Crab Lungs]

I think what “soft arse lefties” want us the end of food banks, child poverty, austerity, under founded public services etc. You know, the stuff that grew under the government that you support. If you lot cared about that stuff it would not have happened. But you really don’t and it did.

 

So austerity wasn't required, at all? We should have continued to just spend spend spend?

[Trader]

No way, people ultimately care more about economic security and the vote for Brexit and Boris illustrates that. Globalisation, the shrinking of tradition work sectors, casualisation of work, pay falling behind and European immigration has created insecurity added to the mix is rising house prices, rip off landlords and cost of further education.

 

The country has had wave after wave of immigration; Irish, Caribbean, Indian subcontinent, African, Eastern European and we have reluctantly accepted them all until the Eastern European influx. This was because the others were unskilled and did jobs that didn't threaten the home population, they were employed in jobs people didn't want to do, they also found it difficult to get hired by home companies. Then the Eastern Europeans came with more skills, a good work ethic and a skin colour that was more palatable. It's not because of a few Polish shops or sauerkraut in Morrisons.

 

We don't have cultural insecurities, we love curry houses, Chinese and kebabs, our kids listen to urban black music, one of the big nights out is Paddy's day, we don't give a **** about St Georges day, we had our hair cut for years by Italians, Turks and Kurds, we use Americanism in our language. There are loads of stuff that we have just assimilated into our lives.

 

Normally after austerity people vote for change and in this instance Boris offered that, although he is from the same party as those in charge for a difficult decade because this was preferred to the other change offered by Corbyn. People were fearful of their spending plans, perceived taxation but more importantly their houses. There was a fear that Corbyn was coming for our houses, amougst all the **** at least we have the equity we have built up, at least we have something for a rainy day or to leave our children. There was nothing cultural about this vote.

 

Our lives are changing but the cultural stuff is at the fringe of our lives, it's the economic stuff that's at the core and this is what people have reacted too. To say otherwise is ideological nonsense.

 

Whoosh

[Jonnyboy]

So austerity wasn't required, at all? We should have continued to just spend spend spend?

 

To some degree but it shouldn't just have been enacted on the poorest whilst the banks got a free ticket.

[sadoldgit]

So austerity wasn't required, at all? We should have continued to just spend spend spend?

 

There is a huge difference between spend, spend, spend and enforced austerity. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It was a choice that the Government took. There were other choices.

[shurlock]

Most economists agree that deficit reduction should have been delayed following the financial crisis. And while fiscal consolidation was sensible at some point, the pace and scale of it was unnecessary. Many of the economic arguments made for austerity at the time -how if borrowing continued on its then track, the markets would have panicked, leading to eye-watering interest rates and inflation- turned out to be bunkum. That’s conveniently forgotten by the project fear fanboys.

[rallyboy]

I see the Mail has just been found guilty of making up the story about Corbyn coming for our houses - there's a few more of those cases to come.

That said, why is he still hanging around?

It would be like Poch sitting on the Spurs bench each week, like a spare...coach.

Move on, it's over.

[Wes Tender]

Calm down Les.

 

Raking over old coals - perhaps don’t jump into others conversation without any context then. As for your points, it’s your usual par for the course drivel and misunderstanding. I suspect if May hadn’t called and botched the 2017 GE which had nowt to do with Brexit (she was still the hardliner back then), we would have ended up with something like we have today i.e. a NI frontstop (remember she initially agreed it with the EU). It was only because she lost her majority and made the DUP critical to her government’s survival that she was forced ditch the idea.

 

Anyway that is only of passing relevance to the original conversation regarding Johnson’s future back in 2016 -and let’s not forget everyone (well dopey Brexiters like you) thought the negotiations would be a piece of pîss. Finally a word of advice: if you don’t like a conversation, perhaps stick to your own - there’s one on another thread awaiting a response pal

 

I repeat; you really have very little idea of Conservative politics. Nothing you have said indicates anything different, in fact it reinforces it.

[shurlock]

I repeat; you really have very little idea of Conservative politics. Nothing you have said indicates anything different, in fact it reinforces it.

 

Keep repeating it - unfortunately circular thinking, impotent rage and blanket charges don't make your points any truer Les. I'm simply reminding you of the facts. It is a fact that in the winter of 2017 May had provisionally reached agreement with the EU over a NI-only backstop but was forced to abandon it after the DUP and Arlene Foster found out. If she hadn't squandered her majority, she could have secured support for that deal from her own backbenches, including the ERG (the same ERG that voted for Johnson's deal which was a basically a rehash of this earlier proposal) and thrown the DUP under the bus.

Edited 24 December, 2019 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think what “soft arse lefties” want us the end of food banks, child poverty, austerity, under founded public services etc. You know, the stuff that grew under the government that you support. If you lot cared about that stuff it would not have happened. But you really don’t and it did.

 

There is hardly any child "poverty" in this country, the word has been abused by lefties like you.

 

You don't end food banks by chucking money around, giving free tuition fees to middle class kids, free broadband to millionaire's, thousands to rich chicks of a certain age and winter fuel allowance to Paul McCartney.

 

You can't run public services if you've run out of money.

 

"My lot" care just as much as "you lot", the difference is the market has made people wealthier than your weird Corbynonics ever will.

[Jonnyboy]

There is hardly any child "poverty" in this country, the word has been abused by lefties like you.

 

You don't end food banks by chucking money around, giving free tuition fees to middle class kids, free broadband to millionaire's, thousands to rich chicks of a certain age and winter fuel allowance to Paul McCartney.

 

You can't run public services if you've run out of money.

 

"My lot" care just as much as "you lot", the difference is the market has made people wealthier than your weird Corbynonics ever will.

 

And at what point have we "run out of money?" The national debt has been huge forever.

[revolution saint]

Most people would of worked out my answer by just reading my post. However, as you’re clearly struggling I’ll answer.

 

Whether I think we’ll be better off or not is irrelevant, post Maastricht I’d vote to leave regardless. Sovereignty issues can’t be judged by GDP, it’s bizarre anyone thinks it can be. Would Mexican’s or Canadian’s sell theirs to The US if it meant a higher GDP & wealthier population?

 

 

Personally , I don’t think leaving will make much difference to the average Joe, but as I said that’s irrelevant.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the reply. Your argument now is very different to the one employed during the referendum though (and still be used by Boris and Nige). Brexit wasn't just going to give us our country back - we would be better off and whether you like it or not it's success will be measured in economic terms. If your argument was being used during the referendum then the result would have been easier to accept but it wasn't. Any attempt to show this has real risks and is more than likely to make us poorer was "project fear" - now you seem to be saying that we probably won't notice a difference but if we do then it's a price worth paying. That's a huge backtrack.

 

I do accept that for you it probably is a price worth paying - you'd be happy for an economic sacrifice in exchange for an airy fairy concept of freedom and sovereignty but those were not the terms presented to people when they voted.

 

By the way, I think the average Joe is already noticing a difference financially (for example if they like to go abroad for holidays) and I think they'll notice more of a difference in the coming years but that'll be dismissed as "project fear" again. What I do take issue with is this idea that sovereignty matters that much more to your "average Joe" than the pound in his pocket. Frankly I think that idea is pony (to coin a phrase). I can't imagine many people besides you cheering a vague concept of sovereignty that makes no difference to their daily lives whatsoever whilst at the same time they face increasing job insecurity (extreme example) or just being worse off financially.

 

I hope that explains why I really don't like this idea that suddenly it's a price worth paying - that wasn't what we were sold.

[benjii]

I don’t think it’s weird, I just despise the greed and selfishness and see conservatism as a movement for both. I find it depressing to live in a society that values having the latest iPhone or Range Rover over caring for the most unfortunate and vulnerable. That’s just my opinion.

 

But it doesn't, does it? We have some of the strongest social safety nets in the world and very few people have a new luxury car or the latest iPhone. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

 

Idiotic hyperbole like yours hinders any sort of movement that chimes with those views.

[benjii]

And at what point have we "run out of money?" The national debt has been huge forever.

 

This is an excellent argument that I suggest you run with your own banks / credit providers.

[Wes Tender]

Keep repeating it - unfortunately circular thinking, impotent rage and blanket charges don't make your points any truer Les. I'm simply reminding you of the facts. It is a fact that in the winter of 2017 May had provisionally reached agreement with the EU over a NI-only backstop but was forced to abandon it after the DUP and Arlene Foster found out. If she hadn't squandered her majority, she could have secured support for that deal from her own backbenches, including the ERG (the same ERG that voted for Johnson's deal which was a basically a rehash of this earlier proposal) and thrown the DUP under the bus.

 

You keeping repeating your speculations as to what might have happened under various different circumstances doesn't make them any more likely to have happened, Gavyn. What impotent rage? I'm perfectly calm. It appears to me that it is you who are getting a bit hot under the collar.

 

It might be that May, Ollie Robbins' glove puppet, provisionally agreed a deal with the EU, but it wasn't only the DUP who rejected it. Where your argument parts with the facts and enters the realms of fantasy, is when you somehow imagine that the ERG would have swung behind May's deal. Yes, they voted for Johnson's deal, but that was sufficiently rehashed to be palatable to them. Believing that the original deal was acceptable to the ERG and indeed the whole Euro-sceptic wing of the party is where you really have no idea of Conservative Party politics.

[shurlock]

You keeping repeating your speculations as to what might have happened under various different circumstances doesn't make them any more likely to have happened, Gavyn. What impotent rage? I'm perfectly calm. It appears to me that it is you who are getting a bit hot under the collar.

 

It might be that May, Ollie Robbins' glove puppet, provisionally agreed a deal with the EU, but it wasn't only the DUP who rejected it. Where your argument parts with the facts and enters the realms of fantasy, is when you somehow imagine that the ERG would have swung behind May's deal. Yes, they voted for Johnson's deal, but that was sufficiently rehashed to be palatable to them. Believing that the original deal was acceptable to the ERG and indeed the whole Euro-sceptic wing of the party is where you really have no idea of Conservative Party politics.

 

What do you mean by original deal?

[Nolan]

Its actually mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty using the lefts current way of measuring it.

 

"They effectively place all families in the UK in a line, from those with the most resources to those with the least. The family in the middle is the “median family”. Any family that has 54% or less of what that median family has is defined as being in poverty.

 

Why 54%? Actually, the SMC itself openly admits this is a “largely arbitrary” choice"

[Jonnyboy]

This is an excellent argument that I suggest you run with your own banks / credit providers.

 

The point is, for simple folk like yourself who need an analogy, when your mortgage gets higher (national debt) the best way to secure your future is the obtain a better paid job (growth) not just simply stop eating and cut your electricity off (austerity).