Last re-shuffle on Labour front benchers was 2 months back - what did Starmer say his focus was after the appointments? “Make Brexit Work promise was a huge part of my agenda”
I doubt very much that anyone currently alive in EU or UK will see or want to see a re-negotiation of any form of GB membership of the Customs Union - it has taken 5 years to get thus far and yet not finished - they are still negotiating on fishing, NI, Financial Services, Horizon programme etc etc.
As for the supposed “Free Trade Agreement” - most people don’t realize that only goods wholly manufactured in UK qualify for tariff free - thus the country of origin baloney that sme’s in Uk are now saddled with.
The real issue for people currently alive is pinning down what on earth Keir Starmer stands for. He surely doesn’t stand for a UK independent of the EU. But I’m certain its possible to find him briefing the media that he is a committed Leaver one day and committed Remainer the next.
In reality it is no longer possible to be a ‘remainer’ or perhaps the term ‘rejoiner’ since re-joining is impossible so there is zero political gain to be made with such a stance.
The focus must to be make brexit a success.
I touched on trade and the lack of agreement on the vast majority of goods that we use, they even left services out (for another day) but even areas such as farming have been put aside.
Farmers received subsidies from the EU via the Common Agricultural Policy - after 5 years the CAP’s replacement is still a work in progress and a lesson in how to make brexit not work.
The Public Affairs Committee vice chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cons) stated “We have known we were replacing the CAP since 2016 and still we see no clear plans, objectives or communications with those at the sharp end — farmers — in this multi-billion pound, radical overhaul of the way land is used and, more crucially, food is produced in this country.
An English small farmer’s typical annual net profit is £22,800 a year without subsidies according.to the FT yesterday.
The aim of the UK CAP is apparently to create more woodlands and wild areas - result will be less home produced food and according to the committee report an increase in food imports.
No great surprise the UK government is slow to develop an agricultural policy. As they seem to have no clear objectives for such a thing anyway its possibly a good idea to proceed slowly.
I’m only being half-cynical - sometimes its the right thing to do to let current circumstances dictate the details of policy. They have a way of eliminating the trivial and cosmetic.
But on a wider note, Labour still seems schizophrenic in its attitude to EU relations. A close relationship with Brussels is close to their middle class leadership philosophy, but its the last thing their working class voters want. Where are they going?
It’s difficult to know - I’d say the reason the current UK Govt are feet dragging is the size of their HoC majority - there are guys making money post brexit but I suspect not the working class.
Cornwall for example was categorized pre brexit by the EU as disadvantaged or poor region and thus qualified for the EU £100m annual grant - the UK Govt promised to make that up - so far the region has got 3m.
The PM promised that he would scrap VAT on household energy saying that the UK only applied it to conform with EU law - they are still taking about it since.
These are people on the poorer end of the spectrum - but nobody is shouting up for them, not even themselves.
We saw how the French fishermen acted because they felt aggrieved yet the Cornish fishermen feel equally so - yet no action.
The hope would be that just maybe things will get done for the smaller guy - instead of spiralling prices.
I’d say its highly likely the pandemic has just thrown all financial planning out the window. Nobody in politics wants to make a U-turn and the earlier a decision is made, the less complete the information available, the more likely it is to be a mistake leading to a U-turn.
You also raise a philosophical point. Would you vote for a certain political party solely because it promised to do good things for a group of voters who are poorer than you, but who don’t wish to vote for that party?
(I have heard several people recently saying they are not personally concerned with the impending rises in domestic energy costs but they are very angry that the government is not doing much to help those who are poorer than they are. It sounded like they intend to not vote Conservative because they believe there are other people who are not being treated well - even though these people are not sticking their hand up to object.)
Well Tom, @peterma rightly raised teh issue of teh 5% VAT on energy - Then there is the additional 25% “Green Tax” also applied. so total 30% of energy prices is tax !
Personally I AM concerred and will pledge here and now that anyone who realises that we sit on top of huge coal resources and have masses of gas also and pledges to rescind this madness - Will get my vote ! - and if Boris does NOT address the issue and reduce these taxes, I WILL vote against Conservatives next time around !
It’s not the British way (Irish the same) to object (I know there are exceptions)…
Nor is it our way to push and shove at a bus stop - I absolutely hate that in France.
But on the other hand there is empathy for those who through no fault are less privileged - oft times likewise that empathy is under the radar so to speak - no big song and dance - just a quiet giving.
I suspect the current leadership of the Conservatives are not in tune with this psyche - if a new political leadership were to recognize this shortcoming then there are votes to be had.
Btw - all the talk is Rishi Sunak & Jeremy Hunt for no.10 & 11 - as a team with either or in the lead position. Seems current FM is positioning to be the next Margaret Thatcher with Fiz Liz parties wooing the new guys - so expect some fiz in the soon to be finalized brexit negotiations (remember she has been tasked as brexit minister, former remain campaigner that she is .
Likely most on here are lucky - we have worked hard saved up and have enough to see us out the other side - but I know for sure there are many who are scraping with make do.
I’m not going to link to it - 3 politicians back in 2016, 2 Conservative and 1 labour issued a statement in the Sun Newspaper - “fuel bills will be lower for everyone”
One of those MP’s are now in Government, in fact he is the PM - yesterday the Sun Newspaper asked this question: Did Boris Johnson take us for fuels with big fat VAT lie?
They spend millions on PPE with contracts that are open to suspicion but …
I was very sorry to see that fracking was taken out of the national infrastructure as well as the Cumbrian coal mine. Combined with the shilly shallying over another Heathrow runway and the absence of real progress with nuclear power its as if some foreign and unfriendly power runs the state here.
What anybody had to say about fuel prices in 2016 is now ancient history and irrelevant. Its not a broken promise when someone else changes the game.
But coming back to the philosophical question - would you vote for a party whose philosophy you disagree with if they promised to provide some unspecified help to some unquantified group of people you don’t know who might otherwise become worse off than you you think they should have done?
The game has not changed - people believe in promises - always have always will.
Your question is soul searching - I suppose it comes down to trust and truth be known i have very little trust in politicians.
I wish it were not so, I cannot think of a politician who I could really trust either on a local level or national - it’s sad that democracy has become so and yet democracy must somehow prevail.
In a way they do mate - Ever heard f the “Frankfurt School” ? (Marxists thrown out of Germany by Hitler - who went over to lecture at the USA Universities and whose doctrines have contaminated in ever increasing measure the “Education” and consequently the Political doctrine of those “Educated” by them !)
In our current situation - The country is now run one ventures to suggest by the vice like grip of one of their “students” - one “Princess Nut-Nut” who hasrecently developed a literal - vice like grip on the genitals of our supposed leader
It’s even worse than that @tommor - this “Help” you speak of is not really within the Government’s gift to “Give” - since anything they "Give - Has by definition to be Stolen from the rest of us !
The Neo-Marxist view of this “Lovely fluffy society” where the poor are raised trough the enforced charity of the rest - simply denies the most powerful explanator of Human Society - ie that EVERY Hierarchy or other organisation strictly obeys the Pareto Principle - and therefore Cannot be run on their charitable view of Equity. Else the “Dog” is simply killed by the ever increasing demands of the parasite !
Or in the best outcome situation, the question is heard in ever increasing volume
A regular claim by current Labour politicians is that Labour established the National Health Service in 1948. Setting up such a service had been a Labour Party commitment since 1932, but they were late to the game. It was Liberal PM David Lloyd George who in 1911 had introduced national insurance to ensure that the working population would always have access to medical care without crippling costs.
Not much further progress was made until the start of WWII. The country was governed by a Coalition government of all major parties, and a national emergency health service was rapidly set up without much opposition. The Coalition government was of course headed by Conservative PM Winston Churchill.
Plans for a post-war health service were developed during the war, and it turns out it was a Conservative Health Minister Henry Willink who submitted the White Paper which led the 1945 Labour government to be able to pass the Act leading to the establishment of the NHS. This built on the Liberal Lloyd George medical care and NI system and Conservative Willink’s health service White Paper.
Support for an NHS was not universal but the major obstacle was Doctors, not the Conservative Party.
If Boris Johnson had followed my line of thought in December 2019, he’d have quit while he was ahead - January 2020, as soon as we got past the New Year’s bank holiday. He knew and we all knew he didn’t want to run a country and he was not going to be good at it. But he left it too late and then we were into the pandemic and the exit route was barred.
The national insurance act 1911 provided for workers on sick leave up to 6 months (it halved after the 3rd month).
Friendly Societies were of great help in administration - many of those societies exist today -e.g. Irish National Foresters.
The health aspect covered TB and a GP - downside was hospital care (excl TB) and of course the sick person had to be in employment.
The NHS act 1948 was opposed by the Conservative Party and Churchill was vehemently so - they voted against it a total of 21 times.
Opposition came from many quarters - local councils did not wish to cede control of hospitals, Doctors did not wish to become State employees and no doctors then no NHS.
The Labour Govt conceded that GP’s could remain private businesses and received contracts from the new NHS, senior doctors were permitted to take on private work, dentists likewise could take on private work and nhs work.
Bevan was unhappy but agreed the concessions to make the NHS work - he did however have some choice words when describing the Tory opposition.
This was Churchill addressing the Royal College of Physicians during the war -
“Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.”
