Lockdowns have had a bigger impact on the economy than Brexit. And before you pretend I want people to die, I don't, but there was a better way, which was funding the NHS, as people with adequate healthcare survive Covid. And oh look, the opposite happened. Well, I say oh look, but apparently the massive scandal in regards to the NHS isn't worth reporting on.....
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?
- Thread starter tbtc
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Not according to the official body that produces economic estimates. Covid (including lockdowns but all the other effects too) may have had more impact in the short term, but in the long term Brexit is more significant.
Impact of Brexit on economy 'worse than Covid'
The boss of the UK's forecaster says Brexit will be worse for the economy than Covid.
www.bbc.co.uk
Discussion on lockdowns versus alternatives is off topic for this thread.
Before the vaccine, I'd argue that it was very important to keep people out of hospital. I disagree that those provided adequate healthcare survived, and that implies the NHS was failing its patients which seems grossly unfair.
Sure, over time, I have no doubt they gained more expertise and could save more people than early on, but I think a lockdown was wise and I fully support the furlough scheme.
Once we got a vaccine, we could reopen and consider allowing the virus to spread more freely - with those at risk now protected (but not 100% of course). I think that's where we are today; where there's an expectation that we're not going to lockdown ever again and must live with the virus and its mutations. People get the shots and a booster and life goes on.
Ensuring people show their vaccination status (OR get an opportunity to do a lateral flow test) to get into some venues helps stop the unnecessary spread, as there are going to be some people who have a health condition they maybe weren't aware of.
Keeping people alive and well seems like a plus for the economy. Those who couldn't work didn't end up homeless (although I think the way they treated many self employed or freelancers was terrible), and those that could still work may have had a chance to save money and will (and likely have) been spending more money since lockdown eased.
The Government made loads of mistakes, but I will defend many of the actions that were sensible if somewhat flawed thanks in part to poor leadership and inconsistencies and ever-changing knee-jerk advice.
I am a strong anti-Brexiter, don't get me wrong, and I wouldn't say any of the above named people are my political friends - but I was trying to draw a line between the conviction Brexiters and the unprincipled (as in Johnson).
If only conviction Brexiters had voted for Johnson's deal, and other Tories had not, we might be in a better position now and at least have a Norway-type setup with freedom of movement. Mind you May is partly to blame here too: if she'd have gone with Norway from the outset, remainers wouldn't have got so angry. Remainers are always blamed but it's people like May and Johnson who dismissed the soft Brexit option who are really at the root cause of the mess.
A hard Brexit is definitely not respecting the marginal referendum result. A Norway deal would be.
In 2016, all the pro leave groups were saying it would be a softer Brexit, and it was only the 'man on the street' that wanted to see immigrants rounded up and sent home, a return of the death penalty, and just leaving the EU with no agreement and telling them we wouldn't pay our fees.
At some point, Boris seems to have listened to those voices and decided a harder Brexit was what the people wanted and was best for the country. He had a deal that couldn't be achieved because of the NI situation, but thought that a bit of rule breaking wouldn't be a big deal (clearly his approach to more than just Brexit).
If we'd had a softer Brexit, similar to a Norway or Swiss deal, then I think life could have carried on without much impact. We'd still have those boats turning up at Dover of course, because at some point people will realise that this is a problem completely and utterly unrelated to whether we're in the EU or not. We always controlled our borders, and we've always sucked at protecting them.
At some point, Boris seems to have listened to those voices and decided a harder Brexit was what the people wanted and was best for the country. He had a deal that couldn't be achieved because of the NI situation, but thought that a bit of rule breaking wouldn't be a big deal (clearly his approach to more than just Brexit).
If we'd had a softer Brexit, similar to a Norway or Swiss deal, then I think life could have carried on without much impact. We'd still have those boats turning up at Dover of course, because at some point people will realise that this is a problem completely and utterly unrelated to whether we're in the EU or not. We always controlled our borders, and we've always sucked at protecting them.
Gloster
Established Member
The last two words should be ‘...Boris Johnson.’
That's the problem. Johnson (and May) listened to those voices, and those voices only. Some of us, the 48% who voted remain, were ignored by the government.
If one assumes that perhaps half the people who voted Brexit really didn't care about immigration, there would be a huge majority for retaining freedom of movement. The government should have either made that assumption and done a Norway deal, or done a second referendum "What sort of Brexit do you want? a) soft with freedom of movement and customs union, or b) hard with immigration restrictions and no customs union". In such a second referendum, a) would have gained a thumping majority I suspect. Instead, the Government decided to implement b), because they knew it was a route to gaining certain seats which have a high % of people showing anti-immigration sentiment. So at the end of the day it was all about the Tories and Johnson, and electoral success.
As I've said many times back in 2016 and thereabouts, a lot of people at the time were very angry when the BBC and other media were literally every day showing all those people flooding into Europe, and we had many people coming in illegally to the UK via boat or in the back of lorries (thanks to our lack of border protection, that continues today). In 2015 and 2016, it was a big issue for the whole of Europe and Germany and Sweden DID suffer a lot of problems for a while - and the media perhaps appeared too supportive which did nothing more than help start the 'woke' arguments against the press.
Nigel Farage capitalised on this and did the whole 'breaking point' thing. We had people going on about, let's be honest, mostly muslims and the man or woman on the street claiming things like the great replacement theory and other racist stuff (fair enough, there are genuine concerns about some people coming into the UK without proper checks) but NONE OF THIS had anything to do with the EU.
But it became a focal point of the referendum, and people seemed to think if we left the EU then all our problems went away. They forgot about the benefits of freedom of travel, and how many people want to live, work and travel throughout Europe as easily as jumping on a train to go from London to Manchester.
I know someone who was pro Brexit because he was very honest and upfront that it would benefit him, and I'm sure many other people with a lot of money and access to money for investing, who saw the benefits. But the person who voted to get rid of the foreign speaking people in their town? Not so much.
Perhaps the 'best' thing about Brexit was that all these people who wanted rid of immigrants were now able to say they supported Brexit because of meaningless phrases like 'taking back control', 'not being ruled by others' and could hide their real motives. I expect many are now very angry because Brexit is hurting them financially, they've lost the ability to move to Spain, will pay more to go to Europe and queue up and need visas etc, and yet despite all those things there are still boats turning up on the coast... so much anger in fact that they're now attacking the RNLI!
Boris plays a huge part in all this because he didn't have to do Brexit as he did. He continued to show the party fears of losing support to further right parties, despite the actual numbers of people that might vote for extreme parties are likely very small numbers in the grand scheme of things.
Nigel Farage capitalised on this and did the whole 'breaking point' thing. We had people going on about, let's be honest, mostly muslims and the man or woman on the street claiming things like the great replacement theory and other racist stuff (fair enough, there are genuine concerns about some people coming into the UK without proper checks) but NONE OF THIS had anything to do with the EU.
But it became a focal point of the referendum, and people seemed to think if we left the EU then all our problems went away. They forgot about the benefits of freedom of travel, and how many people want to live, work and travel throughout Europe as easily as jumping on a train to go from London to Manchester.
I know someone who was pro Brexit because he was very honest and upfront that it would benefit him, and I'm sure many other people with a lot of money and access to money for investing, who saw the benefits. But the person who voted to get rid of the foreign speaking people in their town? Not so much.
Perhaps the 'best' thing about Brexit was that all these people who wanted rid of immigrants were now able to say they supported Brexit because of meaningless phrases like 'taking back control', 'not being ruled by others' and could hide their real motives. I expect many are now very angry because Brexit is hurting them financially, they've lost the ability to move to Spain, will pay more to go to Europe and queue up and need visas etc, and yet despite all those things there are still boats turning up on the coast... so much anger in fact that they're now attacking the RNLI!
Boris plays a huge part in all this because he didn't have to do Brexit as he did. He continued to show the party fears of losing support to further right parties, despite the actual numbers of people that might vote for extreme parties are likely very small numbers in the grand scheme of things.
The death of "soft-Brexit" almost entirely lies at the feet of us nominating leaving the ECJ as one of our red-lines. As soon as we decided we wouldn't want to be under their instruction, we immediately ruled out the majority of the options that were available for a future relationship.
It's worth remembering that Theresa May had lost a few decisions to the ECJ during her time in the Home Office, so that probably played a part in that decision.
It's worth remembering that Theresa May had lost a few decisions to the ECJ during her time in the Home Office, so that probably played a part in that decision.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,090
Theresa May's Brexit would have kept the whole U.K. in the Single Market and Customs Union, with neither a border down the Irish Sea or a visible one with Ireland. Okay, those 50/60/80 or whatever of Tory MPs would never have voted for it, but if the government could have persuaded the Labour Party that the alternative would be the shambles of today then they might just have gone along with it. No chance with Corbyn J in charge of course, with his views set in stone about the wickedness of the E.U., unexpressed to the public but well known in his close circle.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,351
Exactly. It was ironic having a Remain-leaning Prime Minister leading a broadly pro-Brexit Party and a broadly Remain Party electing a pro-Brexit Leader.
Corbyn and his followers got what they wanted, bar him in No 10. More recently they've seen the significant increases in public borrowing and spending they sought and the nationalisation of the railways.
Tory MP who pleaded for Saudi work reported to standards watchdog | Conservatives | The Guardian
I wonder what the chances of a by election in Shrewsbury are? If the Lib Dems win tonight, I would hope they would give Labour a free run in a hypothetical Shrewsbury by election.
That would be a real test for Labour and a better barometer than Bexley.
I wonder what the chances of a by election in Shrewsbury are? If the Lib Dems win tonight, I would hope they would give Labour a free run in a hypothetical Shrewsbury by election.
That would be a real test for Labour and a better barometer than Bexley.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
With the news coming out of the pizza party on the 20th of May, I genuinely have to question if Boris and his cabinet have been on a self destruct mission. The man should just resign at this point to save what little face he has left.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
you are assigning the morals of the little people to the ultimate world king. The great people don't have to be bound by such restraints.
I think Labour and Conservatives are having a contest to see who can be most unelectable at this point.
In your eyes, but not the publics given all the polls.
North Shropshire has just voted for the Lib Dems - by a far wider margin than expected too (47% LD, 32% Con). It does look like the wheels are coming off now.
daodao
Established Member
Regarding the North Shropshire by-election result, there was a similar by-election upset in essentially the same constituency (then named Oswestry) in July1904. The Liberal party's success was temporary and was reversed at the next GE in early 1906, despite the Liberal landslide at that GE.
The Tories' selection of an Indian doctor/lawyer from Brum will not have gone down well in this deeply conservative (with a small c) backwater. The result of this by-election is similar to that at Orpington in 1962 (even down to the % vote shares compared to the previous GE result there in 1959), when the Tories also selected a candidate of non-British ethnicity (Peter Goldman) in a non-cosmopolitan locality.
The Tories' selection of an Indian doctor/lawyer from Brum will not have gone down well in this deeply conservative (with a small c) backwater. The result of this by-election is similar to that at Orpington in 1962 (even down to the % vote shares compared to the previous GE result there in 1959), when the Tories also selected a candidate of non-British ethnicity (Peter Goldman) in a non-cosmopolitan locality.
Neither Sunak nor Javid are suitable Tory leaders, nor was Howard. In the privacy of the ballot box, many British voters feel free to express their xenophobia. It helped Cameron in 2015.
Last edited:
Someone pointed out that they voted fairly strongly for Brexit (57:43) and how have voted LibDem.
Whilst it's true that it's likely to swing back again, it does come on the back of two other by-elections where one other saw a significant swing to LibDems and there's likely to be a fair few MP's nervous about the next time they face the population at an election.
I wouldn't be surprised if they would like as much clear water between Johnson and such an election as possible so that they have chance to repair the reputation of the party. There's currently about 3 years to go to the next general election, which still gives then a fair amount of time.
However, the May 2022 local elections would likely be much harder for Tories to fight if Boris hangs around for very much longer. Those MP's who understand this and are concerned about it (on the last point; probably fairly few) are likely to want to push him out fairly quickly.
Of course there could be others who think "we'll keep Boris until after that as we can then boot him out having blamed him for that too". Although that could see a significant drop in the number of local Tory representatives, which is also risky as if the council's do OK without Tories in charge then there could be some more willing to let others be in charge of Central Government.
Ah, so it's not because we've got the most incompetent Tory government in history, but because they fielded a brown candidate. Okay...
Using your logic, your "deeply conservative" voters in North Shropshire wouldn't have voted for a woman either, would they?
telstarbox
Established Member
Yeah I don't really see it. Maybe a small contributory factor but there are now many rural English seats with non-white Tory MPs.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Always some excuse from some folks isn't there? 
Johnson is over.
Johnson is over.
Well he should be. But it's Teflon Boris we're talking about here. I'm sure Sunak and Truss are now on leadership manoeuvres, but isn't it ultimately the Tory membership who decide? All Johnson has to do it turn on the clown act again, and they'll all lap it up.
bavvo
Member
Actual result;
Con 31.59%
Lab 9.68%
LD 47.14%
Reform 3.75%
Grn 4.56%
Did the vote really change that radically between Labours 'internal poll' and the vote, or was the internal poll iffy to begin with?
birchesgreen
Established Member
I disagree, the clown / populist act only works while things are going well (or at least you think they are), the wheels come off very quickly when things no longer well.
This is a return to more normal poltics. What is more astonishing is that the tories actually won Old Bexley byelection.
The tories will depose Johnson in short order unless he gets his act together. Personally I don't think having a young family with newborns and toddlers is compatible with being able to focus on the PM job properly. In fact he has probably done well to avoid a nervous breakdown.
The problem for the opposition is that so long as the SNP is so dominant in Scotland, the opposition cannot govern except in coalition with them which tbe tories will milk at elections.
For now it looks to me like Truss will replace Mr Johnson before the next election.
The tories will depose Johnson in short order unless he gets his act together. Personally I don't think having a young family with newborns and toddlers is compatible with being able to focus on the PM job properly. In fact he has probably done well to avoid a nervous breakdown.
The problem for the opposition is that so long as the SNP is so dominant in Scotland, the opposition cannot govern except in coalition with them which tbe tories will milk at elections.
For now it looks to me like Truss will replace Mr Johnson before the next election.
- Status