Comments by "Helen Trope" (@heliotropezzz333) on "Polling expert Sir John Curtice explains why Labour did so badly" video.

I agree his Brexit stance wasn't popular but if you look at the policies in the Manifesto it would have helped the North a lot, but I suppose voters don't read the Manifestos.
5
That was their biggest weakness for Labour though they did promise to honour Brexit if people still voted for it in a Referendum with a softer Brexit option (to protect jobs). I can see it was difficult for them because their voters were split over Leave and Remain and as information about what leave would be like under a hard Brexit came more and more to light, they could not see benefits for the average person only an economic hit. It is probably for the best that the Tories are responsible for Brexit now because it's their baby really and I think it's going to be a bumpy ride. If Labour had a bumpy ride with it or didn't do a hard Brexit, they would be blamed by the Tories for any problems. The truth is Brexit will be difficult for any political party to pull off without economic damage.
4
You weren't being offered communism. Communism is doing away with capitalism. The programme on offer was no more communist than the Labour government's programme in 1945 when they were rebuilding Britain or the kind of model you have in Scandinavian countries which come high up in the world happness index.
4
@alanbstard5584 Do you know why? Because Thatcher closed down a lot of industry there saying Britain didn't need it and she never replaced it with anything. Labour may have been in power locally but the Tories in government made sure they were powerless by vastly cutting the funding to local government and when in power the Tories always favour their own constituencies at the expense of Labour ones. Ironically Boris may throw some scraps to the north now in order to keep them voting Tory but don't expect the sort of investment that's really needed to turn things around. I also blame the Blair government. In some respects it acted like Tories in power -Tory-lite, because Blair was an admirer of Thatcher. Maybe Boris has more sense but I wonder. History doesn't allow for much hope. I don't want to be depressing though. I hope for the best for the north.
4
@snowyowel7961 The IFS criticised both Labour and Tory Manifestos. This comment was about the Tory one 'The analysis also highlights the high risk of a no-deal Brexit at the end of 2020, if Boris Johnson wins the election, after he ruled out extending the transition period during which the UK will remain aligned with the EU. Calling it another “die in a ditch” style promise, the IFS said: “That would harm the economy and of course increase the debt and deficit.” And it warned the Tory prospectus would leave spending on public services other than health a striking 14 per cent lower in 2024 than when austerity began in 2010. “No more austerity perhaps, but an awful lot of it baked in,” said Paul Johnson, the IFS director.'
3
@Andrew Battersby That's just a slogan. Actually the UK government controls 99% of UK spending and could have given power to the people any time they wanted to. They never wanted to.
3
@jb175 They seem perfectly happy in Scandinavian countries which is really the model Labour was copying.
2
@snowyowel7961 What they didn't really publicise, and what wasn't clear unless you read the Manifesto was that it was a programme for more than one Parliament. They weren't expecting to do it all over 5 years but would have carried on with it if elected for a second term. They would have done some of it in 5 years anyway.
2
@snowyowel7961 He wasn't intending to retire but so what, any new leader would be honour bound to implement the Manifesto promises if they won an election on the strength of them.
2
@chrismcparland5274 But we were never told what leave would mean for the economy. The Leave Manifesto suggested we would have a great deal but it can take up to 10 years to negotiate trade deals. In the meantime WTO rules would apply which mean tariffs on trade and what that would mean for the economy was never discussed. In any case the EU won't be offering us, in a deal, the kind of terms we had as a member of the EU so there will be an econimic hit and it was never admitted or assessed at the time. Cameron never had a plan for leave as he was convinced that Remain would win and when leave won, he resigned leaving others to sort things out.
1
@chrismcparland5274 In answer to your last question. They will hope we still continue to buy from them but they will certainly make it more difficult for us to sell to them. At least I've looked up the rules rather than just throwing about slogans like 'project fear'. Anyway we will see as Brexit is going to happen now though there will be a one year transition period unless Boris dumps his withdrawal agreement. He has said he will get a deal with the EU ready for a year's time, but since EU deals have never been negotiated in such a short space of time, it remains to be seen whether he can do it or even whether he really wants to do it.
1
@chrismcparland5274 Yep. It's a tough old world out there and no one will be doing us favours when we're out of the EU.
1
@Andrew Battersby What I mean is to contrast a hard Brexit which is leaving the EU without a deal, with Corbyn's idea of a Brexit to save jobs, which was staying in a customs union with the EU. A few countries have arrangements like that with the EU but they are not in the EU. I can't remember them all off the top of my head Turkey is one.
1
@Andrew Battersby Well if our government has overseen a 67bn trade deficit inside the EU, I don't hold out much hope of them doing well in the wider world. We are governed by incompetents. Look, though I don't have confidence in the Tories, I hope things work out well for the north of England and for long neglected areas in the UK.
1
@patriciasullivan2817 You haven't been researching.Jacob Rees Mogg who is pro hard Brexit, relies on economist Patrick Minford in support of this, but even Minford says a hard Brexit will destroy British agriculture and manufacturing.
1
@jb175 Neither was Labour's Manifesto full blown socialist. As I said it was more along Scandinavian lines.
1
@jb175 Same as with Corbyn's plans. They did not remove capitalism.
1
@jb175 Yep. Cobyn was never proposing that the state should own all the means of production. It was more like the Scandinavian model with some differences which I mentioned in another response to you.
1
@alanbstard5584 I don't know but the work was dangerous and many suffered lung complaints and didn't live a full life span or live to collect a pension so I would have expected them to be well rewarded. The unions were necessary because in the history of mining safety was never a great concern of employers and the unions were bound to resist when Thatcher decided to close the mines because it meant the death of many communities.
1