General Election 2017 Mega Thread

[ClaretMoffitt]

To be fair, the Labour Manifesto doesn't say that they want to stay in the Single Market, it says they want to retain the benefits of the Single Market.

It's unlikely you can retain the benefits without remaining in it but I'd suggest it is a bit of sophistry in the manifesto.

I did notice that myself but thought it a bit pedantic to challenge wording and interpretation so opted not to.

[ClaretMoffitt]

This one...? I think he says £34M/day...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 02831.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He said 34million a day, which is 238m a week. Not 350m.

[Rick_Muller]

He said 34million a day, which is 238m a week. Not 350m.

yes, I can do maths too. He also quoted £10B/year (which is about £27M/day) but that just goes to show that politicians throw figures about as if they're fact when they aren't (Diane Abbott excepted... ahem ) and in the article it states that he said...

“Can we just get to the truth of this - £350 million a week is wrong, it’s higher than that,” he told the programme’s audience.

“FACT – absolute fact – from the official statistics cross-checked from the EU: we pay £55 million a day as a contribution. Some of that is the rebate which doesn’t go but our gross contribution is £55 million a day.”

[Lancasterclaret]

I can't believe that after 25 pages we are now arguing over whether Farage lies through his teeth.

I trust May more than I trust him to be honest, and I think she's utterly useless, and completley untrustworthy.

[Greenmile]

He said 34million a day, which is 238m a week. Not 350m.

Still a lie, though, isn't it?

I think the latter few pages of this thread are a perfect example of why today's youth, with their social media habits etc are likely to be a little better informed than the older generations with their reliance on print media. Factual inaccuracies (to be kind) such as those put forward by Clarets Andy and Moffit here are quite quickly and easily disproved, and the internet means anyone can check for themselves. Whereas in the past the newspapers could spout any old nonsense safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of their audience would swallow it wholesale without checking.

That's not to say that social media doesn't come with its own set of problems - the "echo chamber effect" chief amongst them, imo, along with the ease with which genuine fake news (which isn't just anything Donald doesn't like) can proliferate.

[claretandy]

massive problem this.

nursing applications form the eu are down 96%. applications from doctors are also taking and 60% of eu doctors currently practising here are looking at leaving.

all because of brexit.

Nothing to do with the tougher English language tests that have been put in ? nothing at all ? blame brexit

[nil_desperandum]

I would have thought that the majority of EU workers would be at the low end of the wage scale, not the high end, so when generalising the large scale impact it's the low paid workers we need to look at.

Incidentally, I didn't say it's the low paid ones who are likely to become UK citizens, I said that the people who applied to be UK citizens are likely to be low paid and willing to work hard. The reason why people who apply are likely to be low paid, is because the people who are eligible to apply are low paid. As a generalisation.

I did say it was time to put your spade away.
Stats do currently indicate that wages of those from the EU - on average are about a pound an hour less than UK born workers, but that doesn't mean that many hundreds of thousands aren't on a higher than average wage. Indeed they are. Surveys suggest that most EU migrants are either working in relatively low paid jobs or are in professional occupations on good wages, (A very high proportio in the NHS or in business), so we shouldn't just generalise as you keep saying.
As for your second paragraph, I still can't make any sense of your argument.. Why - in your stated opinion - "are the people who are eligible to apply low paid"?
Getting back to my original post, why is someone low paid eligible (or indeed more eligible) if that's what you are meaning to say, than a professional person, a surgeon, a teacher, an accountant, a businessman ???
I just don't follow the logic of your argument. If I was a German entrepreneur who had set up a business in the UK 25 years ago and made a big success of it, and had all my children and grandchildren brought up as UK citizens, why would I be less likely to want citizenship than a low paid manual worker?/ How does eligibility come into it?

[claretandy]

I believe I'm owed something from you.

I don't think so turtles heed, Corbyn on Marr, Mcdonnall on peston and Gardner on The daily politics have all confirmed Labours position is to leave the single Market.

[nil_desperandum]

yes, I can do maths too. He also quoted £10B/year (which is about £27M/day) but that just goes to show that politicians throw figures about as if they're fact when they aren't (Diane Abbott excepted... ahem ) and in the article it states that he said...

And just to be clear - after all the arguing, the official figure for 2016 was £8.6 billion net. It's an audited account.
So that's £165 million / week, or about £23.5 million a day.

[nil_desperandum]

I don't think so turtles heed, Corbyn on Marr, Mcdonnall on peston and Gardner on The daily politics have all confirmed Labours position is to leave the single Market.

Everyone knows that. it's part of leaving the EU. The point is that Labour advocates retaining access to it like (e.g. Norway or Switzerland). By definition we would be out of the Single Market, but we would still be able to trade freely in the EU by making an agreement, and paying a contribution. That's what they mean by accessing the Single Market. The big question is whether they could agree this without also agreeing to free movement of people. That's the part that might be open for negotiation if the EU want us.

[claretandy]

Nationality of NHS

[aggi]

Nothing to do with the tougher English language tests that have been put in ? nothing at all ? blame brexit

It's possible, although they were introduced in January 2016 so the correlation doesn't seem as strong.

[aggi]

Nationality of NHS

A more detailed and up-to-date version

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... y/CBP-7783" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretandy]

It's possible, although they were introduced in January 2016 so the correlation doesn't seem as strong.

Apparently there is a lag in the figures.

[claretandy]

Good article on why "soft brexit" is the worst of both worlds

http://brexitcentral.com/no-soft-brexit ... le-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Do you actually know what "unbiased" is?

[aggi]

Do you actually know what "unbiased" is?

Are you suggesting that a website where the editor is the former Chief Exec of Vote Leave is going to be biased? Surely not

[Lancasterclaret]

I wouldn't dream of suggesting such a thing.

I also would like to make clear that the possibility that I think Andy surrounds himself with what he wants to hear, rather than the truth has not even begun to speculate about the possibility of crossing my mind.

[Darthlaw]

So - just to be clear - did you agree with the Labour Govt spending £850 billion to bail out the banks?. That's why there was no money left, and it makes Corbyn and McDonnell's spending plans seem like a drop in the ocean.

Just to be clear, I agree that the Labour government needed to borrow £123bn on bailing out the banks.
(This reality check thing is great) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/re ... ng-bailout

Do you agree that it was acceptable for Labour to run a deficit during boom economy years, which also contributed to why there was no money left?

Finally, I'm not here trying to change anyone's mind, I've just explained my opinion and reasons for voting. From now, I'll just go back to observing this thread and the 7-8 people's arguments keeping it alive.

[claretandy]

Do you actually know what "unbiased" is?

why don't you argue with the substance ? because you can't.

[Caballo]

Just to be clear, I agree that the Labour government needed to borrow £123bn on bailing out the banks.
(This reality check thing is great) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/re ... ng-bailout

Do you agree that it was acceptable for Labour to run a deficit during boom economy years, which also contributed to why there was no money left?

Finally, I'm not here trying to change anyone's mind, I've just explained my opinion and reasons for voting. From now, I'll just go back to observing this thread and the 7-8 people's arguments keeping it alive.

Further to that Lloyds wouldn't have needed a bean if they hadn't ceded to Gords request to rescue HBOS, which would have cost the then government significantly more, but let's not miss an opportunity to bash those nasty bankers.

[Lancasterclaret]

Because its not an unbiased source Andy.

its telling you what you want to hear.

All Brexit options are not as good for this country as our current membership of the EU. I told you that one year ago and I take no pleasure in still being spot on. Its an economic problem that we could do without, but we are were we are, and of the options left, some sort of free trade deal with the EU is the best bet out there.

[ClaretMoffitt]

To be honest I've reached a point now where I barely care anymore what happens.

If we get a soft brexit, whatever, at least it will shut everyone up and we can go back to being a nation with a lukewarm interest in politics.

[claretandy]

Because its not an unbiased source Andy.

its telling you what you want to hear.

All Brexit options are not as good for this country as our current membership of the EU. I told you that one year ago and I take no pleasure in still being spot on. Its an economic problem that we could do without, but we are were we are, and of the options left, some sort of free trade deal with the EU is the best bet out there.

Which if you read it, is what the article says, and what i want too, control of borders, free trade deal, customs arrangement.

[Caballo]

All Brexit options are not as good for this country as our current membership of the EU. I told you that one year ago and I take no pleasure in still being spot on. Its an economic problem that we could do without, but we are were we are, and of the options left, some sort of free trade deal with the EU is the best bet out there.

Without wishing to re-open old wounds, your doomsday scenario does neglect any possibility of tariff free trade deals with everyone outside of The EU. Completely concur re the single market and Brexit though.

[Lancasterclaret]

Andy - but thats having your cake and eating it. We won't get it without concessions, and that will be the sticking point

Caballo - Yup, long term I'm sure we can sort all this out. But how many years away is that? (based on the EU-Canada, NAFTA etc)

[claretandy]

Andy - but thats having your cake and eating it. We won't get it without concessions, and that will be the sticking point

Caballo - Yup, long term I'm sure we can sort all this out. But how many years away is that? (based on the EU-Canada, NAFTA etc)

ah so i'm having my cake and eating it but you're not ?

[Lancasterclaret]

Eh?

You've told me what we can probably best get, and so have I. I've mentioned that there will be sticking points with it. Thats all

One thing we won't get is "a better deal than we have now".

[claretandy]

Eh?

You've told me what we can probably best get, and so have I. I've mentioned that there will be sticking points with it. Thats all

One thing we won't get is "a better deal than we have now".

But we can't control our borders now, we can't make our own laws now, we can't do our own trade deals now.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes, we can

Yes, we can

Yes, we can (as EU trade deals)

[CrosspoolClarets]

Without wishing to re-open old wounds, your doomsday scenario does neglect any possibility of tariff free trade deals with everyone outside of The EU. Completely concur re the single market and Brexit though.

The bit that nobody seems to get, and the Tories have been neglectful in not promoting it, is that tariff free trade outside the EU may well include some kind of, if not quite free, fairly loose migration policies.

Looser access to Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, Brazil, maybe even the US. Not a bad draw to many of the youngsters out there?

The finances of those trade deals are obviously a factor too. I'm happy to call a Brexit soft, even flaccid, if we have that kind of deal with other nations coupled with freedom with the ECJ and controls over EU migration. Maybe with very loose limits on who is allowed to come or stay.

Mind you, I think that is what they call a soft Brexit now, but called a hard Brexit 9 months ago. We may end up getting a soft Brexit but exactly the kind of Brexit that Gove and Boris really wanted.

[dsr]

I just don't follow the logic of your argument. If I was a German entrepreneur who had set up a business in the UK 25 years ago and made a big success of it, and had all my children and grandchildren brought up as UK citizens, why would I be less likely to want citizenship than a low paid manual worker?/ How does eligibility come into it?

I'll step-by-step it for ease of understanding.

1. Compared with the natives, a relatively high proportion of EU migrants work in low paid industry eg. factories, hotels, farms.
2. Therefore if all EU migrants apply for UK passports, a relatively high proportion of applicants for UK passports will be low paid.

It'd be similar if someone offered £100k per year for a cushy job available to all posters on Up The Clarets. There would be a disproportionate number of applicants from the north west of England. Not because Mr. South East doesn't want the job, but because there is a high proportion of north-westerners on this board.

[Spijed]

Looser access to Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, Brazil, maybe even the US. Not a bad draw to many of the youngsters out there?

One thing I don't understand, or at least doesn't seem to be an issue, are the products we already supply to these countries.

For example, if we sell Royal Doulton pottery around the world, are we currently limited by our membership of the EU?

I would have thought that everyone in Australia who wants a Royal Doulton dinner service can buy a Royal Doulton dinner service, or are we limited to how many sets we can export because of being in the EU?

If we aren't limited in this example, which is most likely the case, then how are companies like this going to benefit from being outside the EU.

Also, I couldn't imagine anyone in Saudi Arabia who wants a Rolls Royce being told they can't own one because we can only sell x amount of cars. I'll bet we are allowed to flog any number we like to these countries.

[dsr]

One thing I don't understand, or at least doesn't seem to be an issue, are the products we already supply to these countries.

For example, if we sell Royal Doulton pottery around the world, are we currently limited by our membership of the EU?

I would have thought that everyone in Australia who wants a Royal Doulton dinner service can buy a Royal Doulton dinner service, or are we limited to how many sets we can export because of being in the EU?

If we aren't limited in this example, which is most likely the case, then how are companies like this going to benefit from being outside the EU.

Also, I couldn't imagine anyone in Saudi Arabia who wants a Rolls Royce being told they can't own one because we can only sell x amount of cars. I'll bet we are allowed to flog any number we like to these countries.

Tariffs. As it stands, when we sell to Australia, our customers have to pay WTO tariffs - currently 5% on china. If we could access a free market with Australia, tariffs would be abolished. As it stands, we can't access a free market with Australia because the EU won't let us - "Single Market" means this is a tariff-free market, but it's the only one we're allowed to join.

[Paul Waine]

I'll step-by-step it for ease of understanding.

1. Compared with the natives, a relatively high proportion of EU migrants work in low paid industry eg. factories, hotels, farms.
2. Therefore if all EU migrants apply for UK passports, a relatively high proportion of applicants for UK passports will be low paid.

It'd be similar if someone offered £100k per year for a cushy job available to all posters on Up The Clarets. There would be a disproportionate number of applicants from the north west of England. Not because Mr. South East doesn't want the job, but because there is a high proportion of north-westerners on this board.

Hi dsr,

My instinct is to doubt your stats. I don't know if the gov't (or any other authority) has published stats on the earnings of EU citizens working in the UK. Based on my experience working in London: (I) there are a high number of EU graduates working in high paid jobs in London, many are associated with the banking/financial sector which does a lot of its business with Europe - and so the European nationals have a lot to offer with their language skills; (2) Stats are available on EU nationals working in the NHS, I'd tend to class these as more likely average to higher paid jobs, (3) yes, there are number of other EU nationals that have moved to the UK particularly after central European countries (with lower local wages) joined the EU and many of these will be low waged, (4) on the other hand, Polish graduates are extremely well educated and many will be high earners. (5) I don't know whether Republic of Ireland citizens are counted as EU migrants - because they've had the right to live and work in the UK from 1920s when Eire separated from UK.

I'm not sure I understand your £100k job offer. Won't it depend on where the job is? And, isn't the discuss re EU citizens that the £100k job is offered in a different country and so requires willingness to relocate?

[dsr]

Up here, the factory employing minimum wage people tend to be filled with eastern Europeans, and the hotels around the country certainly are. I've no experience of farms. "Head hunted" EU nationals, eg. nurses, would skew the statistics upwards; and I wouldn't count Irish because they have always had free movement into the UK, long before the EEC, and I suspect that wouldn't change.

[Paul Waine]

One thing I don't understand, or at least doesn't seem to be an issue, are the products we already supply to these countries.

For example, if we sell Royal Doulton pottery around the world, are we currently limited by our membership of the EU?

I would have thought that everyone in Australia who wants a Royal Doulton dinner service can buy a Royal Doulton dinner service, or are we limited to how many sets we can export because of being in the EU?

If we aren't limited in this example, which is most likely the case, then how are companies like this going to benefit from being outside the EU.

Also, I couldn't imagine anyone in Saudi Arabia who wants a Rolls Royce being told they can't own one because we can only sell x amount of cars. I'll bet we are allowed to flog any number we like to these countries.

Hi Spijed,

There are two items, at least, that create trade barriers. The first is the addition of an import tariff that makes the price of the royal doulton (great example you've chosen) higher than the price of local "royal doulton" equivalents. The second is local rules on the specifications/quality requirements of the products, and these rules may make it difficult/impossible for royal doulton to meet these specs/quality. For example, there could be a rule that said dinner services must be manufactured using locally source clay only, or the dinner plates must be a specific measurement - and one that is not common in royal doulton's home markets. Sometimes there are volume limits on trade, for example, no more than X tonnes of steel (of a particular grade) may be imported directly (or indirectly) from country Y in a year.

The Saudi princes will always be able to import their RRs - because they have the wealth to pay whatever import tariffs are imposed (I've no idea if Saudi Arabia imposes trade tariffs). Singapore has very high tariffs on imported cars as well as a 10 year Certificate of Entitlement (COE). This is all about the limited space for private cars in Singapore, rather than trade barriers to support local Singapore car manufacturers (of which there are none).

[CrosspoolClarets]

I would have thought that everyone in Australia who wants a Royal Doulton dinner service can buy a Royal Doulton dinner service.

Probably the best example I can give on this is to suggest you try to buy, say, a fitness tracker from a US website.

There is a very good chance it will say they do not export outside the US. I don't know why. Maybe product liability, warranty, who knows?

A free trade agreement means they cannot do this, nor can they make it difficult to buy from overseas, e.g. by giving it an incompatible technical configuration. I can only imagine that some of our manufacturers are limited in selling outside the EU for similar reasons, not just tariffs.

By the way, on a totally separate point, I've noticed the above debate about nurses, something I know a bit more about than Brexit.

Nurses are now a profession where we are so short we are allowed to expand our net outside the EU (thus, by definition, inside the EU after we leave). Also, somebody mentioned bursaries being scrapped on the news, but this was a deliberate plot by Osborne to lead to thousands more nurses in university. It may not work, but it was done to boost numbers not cut them. Finally, we are in a NHS where care is being provided closer to home. We do need more nurses, but they are also being replaced (to a small degree) by therapists and other professions where typically staff tend to be British and we struggle less to get them - looking at headline nurse numbers may be misleading.

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't think so turtles heed, Corbyn on Marr, Mcdonnall on peston and Gardner on The daily politics have all confirmed Labours position is to leave the single Market.

So?

If you leave a room but have a key to it's locked door you still have access to that room.

[nil_desperandum]

Just to be clear, I agree that the Labour government needed to borrow £123bn on bailing out the banks.
(This reality check thing is great) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/re ... ng-bailout

Do you agree that it was acceptable for Labour to run a deficit during boom economy years, which also contributed to why there was no money left?

Finally, I'm not here trying to change anyone's mind, I've just explained my opinion and reasons for voting. From now, I'll just go back to observing this thread and the 7-8 people's arguments keeping it alive.

Hi Darth,
Having looked more into the costs of the bail out, I have to admit that more I dig around the more conflicting figures I get.
I took my figure from an article in the Independent in 2008, in which the National Auditing Office claimed that 850 billion was what the Labour Party had spent in propping up the banks. The later Guardian article you referenced has a lot of figures in it, and a more detailed breakdown of how the 850 billion figure and even higher figures were arrived at. I think the bottom line is: that whatever the figure was, it was a a massive amount, and even if we agree on £123 billion in actual cash, it is still 2 and a half times more than the Labour manifesto pledges this time were calculated to cost.
You didn't answer my question about whether or not the govt. should have bailed out the banks, but I'll try to answer yours about Labour running a deficit in the boom years, so briefly:
At the time, and the way things looked economically I think it was a perfectly acceptable and laudable policy to invest in schools, hospitals, police, public services etc, but retrospectively it turned out to be a mistake, and it did contribute to the poor state of our finances in 2008 / 9.
However, at the start of 2007, there were few economists expressing concern at government borrowing running at 36% of GDP. By post-war standards, UK government debt was low and the government appeared to be meeting its own reasonable fiscal targets, and if you actually go back to that time you'll find articles and speeches in which George Osborne, (as Shadow Chancellor), was promising to match Labour's spending plans at the next General election. It was only after the crash that economic advisers and spokesmen began to criticise the government's spending, and when the press seized on it, the Conservatives suddenly became v critical of the spending - which they had previously promised to match.
So I'm not saying that the spending was wise, just that few really questioned it at the time - Vince Cable being a notable exception.
Virtually everyone now blames Neville Chamberlain for appeasement in the 1930s, but the reality is that very few questioned this policy, and he had support from all sides of the house, until it was too late. There was very little opposition to Labour spending in the early 2000s, but they took 100% of the blame when it went wrong.

[Imploding Turtle]

The threat of this kind of thing being legal is why we're going to look back one day and regret that we gave up the EU's protection of workers' rights.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/must-r ... our/12/06/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[quoonbeatz]

Perhaps we may start finally investing in our own people now instead of constantly relying on foreign imports just because its cheaper than training up our own kids. Or I guess none of our young people would want to be things like doctors, nurses and medical professionals, I mean they are such unattractive professions, right?

and thats exactly the problem that aggi was raising. as an example, the government have abolished nursing bursaries so applications are down there as well.

it takes a lot of training to become a medical professional. they are not unattractive professions per se but our government seem pretty focussed on making them so. see the junior doctors' contract debacle for further proof.

also, if we do suddenly start making it more attractive again and pouring money into training, there's an interim period that needs to be covered and the endgame should be striking a balance between training up our own people and bringing in the best talent from abroad. like it or not, we need 'foreign imports' to make it all work properly.

[quoonbeatz]

Nothing to do with the tougher English language tests that have been put in ? nothing at all ? blame brexit

you'll clutch at any straw, won't you?

there are a number of factors that will have played a part here but the overarching issue is brexit.

[Imploding Turtle]

Nothing to do with the tougher English language tests that have been put in ? nothing at all ? blame brexit

Microsoft Edge and TinyPic? Just when i thought you couldn't be less credible.

[Caballo]

and thats exactly the problem that aggi was raising. as an example, the government have abolished nursing bursaries so applications are down there as well.

Alarming as that sounds, it still left 57,000 people applying for 21,500 positions.

[dsr]

The threat of this kind of thing being legal is why we're going to look back one day and regret that we gave up the EU's protection of workers' rights.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/must-r ... our/12/06/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's the massive expansion in postal votes and consequent de facto abolition of the secret ballot that we need to worry about. That specific incident is a non-story because the company has know way of knowing who the staff are voting for (and the staff know it too); but what if a company takes the next step and insists its staff all have postal votes?

(And all this would have been illegal under UK law too.)

[quoonbeatz]

Alarming as that sounds, it still left 57,000 people applying for 21,500 positions.

... in 2015.

UCAS data for 2017 says the following:
"The subject experiencing the most notable decrease in applicants is nursing. Applicants from England making at least one choice to nursing fell by 23% to 33,810 in 2017. Most applicants to nursing are over 19 years old and English applicants from this age group decreased by between 16% and 29%. English 18 year old nursing applicants fell by 10%. English applicants to courses other than nursing fell by 4%, ranging from an increase of 1% for 18 year olds and a reduction of 17% for 25 and over."

[Lancasterclaret]

Bit O/T, but its a bit silly in the digital age not to have some sort of internet voting.

Would help those who can't get it together enough (for whatever reason) to make it to a poll station.

One user id, one password and one vote. How hard could that be?

[claretandy]

Microsoft Edge and TinyPic? Just when i thought you couldn't be less credible.

Could have been worse, I could have had soapytitwank in my search box.

[Mala591]

THE EU CUSTOMS UNION

Can we stay in, should we stay in ?

If we can stay in and maintain tight control of our borders and who works/lives here then I think we should stay in.