Friday 14th to Monday 17th April 2017

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 7:23 pm

PorFavor wrote:
19:04
Turkey's main opposition to challenge referendum result

AFP news agency (@AFP)

#BREAKING Turkey's two main opposition parties say to challenge referendum result
April 16, 2017 (Guardian Live)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ial-powers

A closer result "than predicted", apparently.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 7:29 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:quote="SpinningHugo"]
1. One thing I feel quite strongly about is that those in the medical profession are exactly the wrong people to be listening to. They are trained in medical care. not the economic modelling of delivering services. The people to listen to on the delivery of heathcare are (micro-)economists.

2. The NHS does have strengths, but there are also good reasons why the UK is the only country that adopts this model.

3. The NHS is cheap, but illiberal. It is cheap because it is illiberal. Because it is illib

Can I just challenge the idea that the UK is the only country that has adopted the NHS model. .

Which other systems, specifically, are you thinking of?[/quote]

Government run health systems in mainly Commonwealth countries, that treat the majority of people for free, bar prescription charges, that run free hospitals, public health programmes such as contraception, vaccination, disease control, etc., including vital stuff like TB, Malaria, Dengue, other tropical and infectious vectors, with a recognition that health and the interests of a nation are utterly intertwined and not separable, and who educate young medical staff within a very similar model to ours. Similar because such systems were in fact based upon ours, nothing more efficient has been found, and even those who do go into private practice still also work within the national framework, just like many of ours. Sadly, though there were many more who used to follow such a system in more recent times, i.e. since the 80s, many such nations have been restructured economically, and part of the deal has been to undermine, on the grounds of fiscal incompetence, the notion of universal health care, paid for through taxation. This coincided with the insertion of privatised concerns that leach off government revenues, i.e. making huge profits from the (often very poor) provision of public services.

Why specifically do you want to know? Because you are interested, or because you have an agenda you wish to push? Or because you consider your view of the world more valid than that of others?

I can give concrete examples of the latter if you so wish. I am not interested in rhetoric or influencing others, just trying to see the world as it actually is.[/quote]

What I wanted to know was whether I had been wrong in claiming that no other jurisdiction had a system like the NHS.

I have my answer, so thanks.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 8:04 pm

"The DWP has issued guidance notes on the Housing Costs Element for 18-21 year olds (or rather the removal thereof).

At para 20 is a (non-exhaustive) list of circumstances in which it may be deemed to be inappropriate for the young person to live with their parents. It starts, rather obviously one might think, with

those whose parents are deceased

Still, it is always best to be clear about such things.

Apparently, the Decision Maker “should accept the evidence from the person or their representative unless there is stronger evidence to the contrary

Of course the real damage is that landlords, particularly private landlords, will simply hear the ‘no housing element for those under 22’ and not offer tenancies in the first place, because one cannot claim the housing element (and gain the exemption) unless there actually is a specific prospective tenancy

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/04/water-and-youth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nearly Legal (Giles Peaker)

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 8:53 pm

PorFavor wrote:Yes. Makes a Jeremy Corbyn rally look like very small pommes de terre.

From time spent in France it was always apparent that people there take their right to demonstrate very seriously, even quite small towns would come out on national issues. I do not think we have a similar culture in that respect, or comparable.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:05 pm

Superb, brilliant, spot on take down of the West Wing (and the adoration it inspires amongst both HRC and Blair devotees) by Luke Savage on the Current Affairs site.

A must read.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:14 pm

http://editor.currentaffairs.org/author/lukesavage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Superb, brilliant, spot on take down of the West Wing (and the adoration it inspires amongst both HRC and Blair devotees) by Luke Savage on the Current Affairs site.

A must read.

http://editor.currentaffairs.org/2017/0 ... west-wing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:18 pm

HindleA wrote:http://editor.currentaffairs.org/author/lukesavage/

Curses

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:18 pm

@SpinningHugo

What I wanted to know was whether I had been wrong in claiming that no other jurisdiction had a system like the NHS.

I have my answer, so thanks.

You were in fact wrong on this one. I am in fact talking about other jurisdictions. What else are other independent nations?

Of course anywhere in the world wealthy classes can access private medical care. That is indisputable. But free healthcare provision in all respects similar to ours (but maybe without the frills) is most definitvely there. The nation I referred to with regard to endemic kidney disease for instance, has a very well respected kidney transplant programme, and free, just as it would be here. They get pretty shirty about bright young surgeons being poached by the somewhat predatory private hospital chains, the young doctors concerned like our young doctors, struggle to make ends meet because of the high cost of living.

I was approached at a medical conference a few years ago by the head of one such nations public health department, he had studied here and was looking to implement measures that would ensure that public funds in his country were allocated wisely in the matter of degenerative disorders. He told the group I was a part of that there was no finer example of the way healthcare could be delivered than ours. We were not in Britain at the time, so he was not just being nice. The others in the group were all from the US. He was adamant that a system like theirs would mean loss of individual rights, and a very poor use of public policy and of course money.

Edited to add:
In my previous post I referred to countries that had been restructured in ways that brought about change of their socialised provision. The earliest I know of regarding these was New Zealand. Currently it costs around thirty pounds there to visit your GP, any prescriptions are charged on top of that as individual items. Many drugs that are quite common here are not available, some of them very useful drugs. I cannot inform on hospitalisation, I do not have that info. There have been improvement in terms of efficiency, and wastage has been cut.

(A NZ citizen temporarily residing here was scandalised by my GPs lax attitude to persistent failure to remove an item from my prescription list for many months. I was told that simply would not happen in NZ. Here and there once an item is collected it cannot be returned, this was something I had tried, to get the pharmacist to stop the continuing overprescription. There everyone had been educated into careful usage and waste avoidance, in the interests of all.

The restructuring had caused a national shock, and a far more real version of austerity than we have experienced, with one proviso, unlike here there was not an onslaught on the poor, the financial straights there were in, as a nation, were put down to mismanagement at the top and not the 'burden' of supporting those at the poorer end of society. )

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:43 pm

IMHO the "how far left" thing isn't uncontested and/or so easilly pigeon holed.I've seen the means testing of WFP,not to say DLA in the past described as "more left wing" and of course there has long been left wing advocates to make any housing assistance to homeowners repayable,which the Tories are enacting from next April.One of many reasons I refuse to belong or be so pigeon holed.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 9:51 pm

I like that one sentence:

"Shockingly, life is not like a television programme...."

That resonates with me.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 10:00 pm

HindleA wrote:IMHO the "how far left" thing isn't uncontested and/or so easilly pigeon holed.I've seen the means testing of WFP,not to say DLA in the past described as "more left wing" and of course there has long been left wing advocates to make any housing assistance to homeowners repayable,which the Tories are enacting from next April.One of many reasons I refuse to belong or be so pigeon holed.

I prefer the terms progressive and regressive, tbf, to right and left wing. It gives room to actually assess where policies are taking us.....

In populist terms yes you have the far left and far right, not much difference behaviourally quite often, but politically?

I am btw appalled that out of work homeowners will now be levied by government a % on top of whatever penalties they will face from their lenders. And am equally appalled by sucessive failures by governments to take the heat out of housing by ensuring adequate affordable building undertaken. Instead decades of empty promises.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 16 Apr, 2017 10:31 pm

Well.

George Eaton‏Verified account @georgeeaton 5m5 minutes ago
More
Alan Milburn: NHS co-payments would be inefficient. UK spends 2p in £1 on admin, Germany 5p, France 6p, US 10p. #WestminsterHour

No wonder enthusiasts of an insurance-based scheme don't want us to know how much it costs...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 7:54 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Well.

George Eaton‏Verified account @georgeeaton 5m5 minutes ago
More
Alan Milburn: NHS co-payments would be inefficient. UK spends 2p in £1 on admin, Germany 5p, France 6p, US 10p. #WestminsterHour
No wonder enthusiasts of an insurance-based scheme don't want us to know how much it costs...

Again, yes of course. If you want a more liberal regime, giving people choices to pay more, that inevitably costs more to administer than a pure collective regime.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 8:15 am

CON: 44% (+2)
LAB: 23% (-2)
LDEM: 12% (+1)
UKIP: 10% (-1)

(via YouGov)

Same as ComRes essentially.

I suppose this gives rise to two questions?

First, where is the tipping point? FPTP is keeping Labour alive. When does it drag it down?

Second, when does the gap become so big that the PLP can no longer hold their discipline? Since the post-referendum "coup" failure their new tactic has been to leave Corbyn alone to fail. Can they hold this discipline until 2018 if Labour is polling below 20%?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 9:07 am

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sharp rise in rejected claims for disability benefit

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 9:59 am

Campbell on May

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-nation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reacting to the message, Alastair Campbell, who famously said when working for Tony Blair that “we don’t do God”, suggested May should tread carefully when linking her faith to the political challenges facing the country. “I think even vicars’ daughters should be a little wary of allying their politics to their faith,” he said. “She does not exactly say if God had a vote he would have voted Leave, but she gets closer to it than she should. If she really thinks she is leading a united country full of hope ... I suggest she gets out more.”

Indeed

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 10:24 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:Campbell on May

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-nation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reacting to the message, Alastair Campbell, who famously said when working for Tony Blair that “we don’t do God”, suggested May should tread carefully when linking her faith to the political challenges facing the country. “I think even vicars’ daughters should be a little wary of allying their politics to their faith,” he said. “She does not exactly say if God had a vote he would have voted Leave, but she gets closer to it than she should. If she really thinks she is leading a united country full of hope ... I suggest she gets out more.”
Indeed

This is excellent on May, Easter and what being a Christian means

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/easter-ther ... ight-tone/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 10:27 am

Some very nice interactive graphs here

http://www.pollingdigest.com/datahub/?p ... =hootsuite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 10:28 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Run for your life – and for cake
Rose George
Happiness, fancy toenails – and a love of old toothbrushes: aside from a longer lifespan, there so many great reasons to get your jogging skort on

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 10:36 am

run Ginger, run for your liiiife

(chicken run)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 10:51 am

Nobody is interested in your leading questions about polls, SH.

As with the recent ComRes, YouGov apparently also show that Labour's recent policy announcements are popular.

So how to explain the apparent contradiction between that and the VI figures? I have my ideas, but they may not be the same as yours......

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:06 am

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/s ... o-10237346" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Shock" rise of people given ZERO points in the Tories' cruel disability benefit tests

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:07 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Nobody is interested in your leading questions about polls, SH.

As with the recent ComRes, YouGov apparently also show that Labour's recent policy announcements are popular.

So how to explain the apparent contradiction between that and the VI figures? I have my ideas, but they may not be the same as yours......

Ooooh. Mysterious.

I think it is because Labour is not as popular as it was 2 years ago.

Yoiu?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:22 am

Oh god.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:25 am

I don't happen to be religious but the self deception,duplicity, involved if you enact policies that kick people when they are down,recently bereaved,sick/disabled,terminally ill and somehow warp that to mean ,good deeds in the pursuit of a promised reward in the hereafter,is literally mindblowing.Unless Brown got it wrong of course in the not walking on the other side thing and forgot the" spit in the face in the name of bland Christianity and pursuit of votes"rejoinder.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:25 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Nobody is interested in your leading questions about polls, SH.

As with the recent ComRes, YouGov apparently also show that Labour's recent policy announcements are popular.

So how to explain the apparent contradiction between that and the VI figures? I have my ideas, but they may not be the same as yours......

Ooooh. Mysterious.

I think it is because Labour is not as popular as it was 2 years ago.

Yoiu?

It is trivially easy to explain the disconnect between popular policies and Labour polling.

People have seen Corbyn and 80% of the voters have utterly rejected him. They want nothing to do with him or his mates (most of whom are disliked more than he is).

Asking people do you think policy A is a good idea is a totally different question to will you let Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott be responsible for the economy and the defence of the UK.

In answer to the more interesting question what is the FPTP tipping point, it is a system that rewards concentrated voting. So assume Labour and the Lib Dems both poll around 18% (realising 23% is a mid term poll) then if their vote is concentrated enough they will out perform better than 18% of the seats. If it is fragmented and evenly spread (which it isnt) they could get nothing.

As for the PLP. If they feel they have more chance cut free of the leadership, especially faced with deselection attempts in the 100 or so winnable seats, and if they can get funding, and if they can split the moderate unions from Unite then UDI is possible. This latter point is interesting, some unions are on record as saying they won't let Corbyn destroy Labour, but with Unite helping hard to see how to stop him. They might help create a lifeboat.

But realistically we are 12 months from that being a serious proposition, if ever.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 11:29 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Nobody is interested in your leading questions about polls, SH.

As with the recent ComRes, YouGov apparently also show that Labour's recent policy announcements are popular.

So how to explain the apparent contradiction between that and the VI figures? I have my ideas, but they may not be the same as yours......

This poll tells us that people like certain Labour policies, but doesn't tell us how important these particular policy areas are to people. The most obvious explanation of the apparent contradiction is that these are not priorities for voters and in areas which are priorities for people - immigration control or remaining/re-joining the EU perhaps - they don't agree with Labour. Certainly being both pro-immigration and pro-embracing Brexit does seem likely to narrow potential support. No doubt the assumption is that once we've left the EU, such EU focused issues will no longer be priorities but there are dangers of trying to bypass the Brexit dilemma and remain on the fence. It's possible voters will be drawn to distinctive sides of the Brexit divide for some time to come, with Labour continuing to lose support through being neither one thing or another. And once people lose the Labour voting habit, there are no guarantees it will come back.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:02 pm

Labour still suffers from the "free pont" problem it had under Miliband.

People like free ponies. Parties that promise them quickly hit a ceiling of credibility

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:04 pm

Well that is one interpretation, but far from the only one. Polls consistently show that "militant remainers" account for 20% or so of the electorate - it is hard to see how Labour could gain by adopting that stance, especially since the LibDems (and possibly Greens, despite their anti-EU past) can likely always "outdo" them on this.

Labour's best hope is that the "national conversation" changes as Brexit declines in salience. Its basically what happened in Scotland a few years ago, so far from impossible.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:23 pm

Tom Newton Dunn‏Verified account
@tnewtondunn

Follow
More
Excl: Home Office looking at 'barista visas’ to ensure coffee shops and pubs are still fully staffed after Brexit;

Brexit means...Br...er...as you were.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:25 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Labour still suffers from the "free pont" problem it had under Miliband.

People like free ponies. Parties that promise them quickly hit a ceiling of credibility

Yes, people like free ponies.

At least, that explains how the last Tory manifesto was basically a collection of wildly contradictory "free ponies" - BUT PEOPLE STILL VOTED FOR IT!

Now, why might that be?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:30 pm

Well of course it is local elections in May and far from the (increasingly obvious)and relentless attempts from May admiring Harry Enfield impersonators to undermine any opposition from the bland Christianity or misanthropic hypocrisy of current Tory Government,it is ever more important for me to vote Labour,or Kev down the road,in my case,hopefully six times,dependent on paw print as signature acceptance.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:34 pm

Good piece by Theo Bertram in the Graun today, credit where it is due.

In particular, his praise of Ashworth and Rayner is spot on.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:45 pm

Brexit means baristas (are treated differently because thepeoplehavesaidthattheywanttoenjoylotsofponsiecoffeeevenafterwe'velefteurope)

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 12:57 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw

Sharp rise in rejected claims for disability benefit

If that was the figure for rejections in 14/15 goodness knows what the total is now. I have had this misfortune to read the stories of many such people, it is shaming and shameful that their voices are heard and ignored, in parliament and out. If ever a policy was designed to 'prove' Tory propaganda it is disability benefits. Still after seven years there are people who believe that motability is 'given' to people, have no understanding of hidden disabilities, fluctuating conditions, the reality of untreatable and incurable conditions, have no knowledge the cost of disability, the cost effectiveness of indepedence, the many many working disabled, and a host of other this. Why would they? They have been told lies for so long that the propaganda is now regarded as 'truth'.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:16 pm

Designed overwhelmingly by the ignorant as to the practical reality.Apparently,universal flying carpets and bespoke robotic assistance for every possible need has been available since the turn of the Century so well due for reform.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:30 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw

Sharp rise in rejected claims for disability benefit

No comments allowed on that article, I see. But Capita is allowed the last word?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:33 pm

Don't forget the miracle cures and waterless baths.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:34 pm

And running 15% above Osborne intentions,hence recent attempts to put on track which so appalled those that voted for it.As with any purposeful ,against all evidence and previous judiciously applied,in effect,investment,an epic false economy.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:36 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Good piece by Theo Bertram in the Graun today, credit where it is due.

In particular, his praise of Ashworth and Rayner is spot on.

Very useful

One thing clearly lacking is going hard for the Tories. I have been disappointed that there is no consistent attack on the nonsense and inconsistency in their message and policies

In many cases the Tories are in a worse state than Labour. Jettisoned much of their manifesto, actually been very ineffective in policy implementation and their record on the economy is abysmal

The engagement of people like this who know how to attack effectively is important. Many have actually taken their eyes off the Tories and have directed fire internally which has been one of the reasons we are where we are

The 'enemy' Is, and always be, the Tories!

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:37 pm

Deleted double post

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:38 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well that is one interpretation, but far from the only one. Polls consistently show that "militant remainers" account for 20% or so of the electorate - it is hard to see how Labour could gain by adopting that stance, especially since the LibDems (and possibly Greens, despite their anti-EU past) can likely always "outdo" them on this.

Labour's best hope is that the "national conversation" changes as Brexit declines in salience. Its basically what happened in Scotland a few years ago, so far from impossible.

Our new and ongoing relationship with the EU will surely be a major issue for the 2020 election at least. And although I agree Corbyn undoubtedly alienates more staunch Brexiters than staunch remainers like me, the point I'm making is that he doesn't appeal particularly to either. If there really is a much larger pool of people in the middle who don't really care either way, given Labour apparently has popular policies, why isn't their support much larger? Labour must be getting it wrong somewhere on policies that people really care about. If not the EU, then what?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:51 pm

@ howsilly It is catching

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:53 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Deleted double post

We've all done it

On one of your points, I did notice that slug Neil Coyle slagging off the SC to the Sun the other day.

Even if what he said was true that would have been pretty disgraceful, but it appears he was basically telling fibs.

I know that McNicol is only interested in disciplining left wingers (or at least it seems that way) but surely that is deserving of censure?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 1:59 pm

HindleA wrote:@ howsilly It is catching

On a ship and WiFi bit iffy (actually this is probably just a bad excuse for incompetence on my part)

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 2:02 pm

The people in the middle who don't care either way are people who are largely unaffected and/or benefit from the fact that they are a demographic that the tories don't wish to alienate. They vote selfishly in their own interests, and either don't give a shit for the less well off or have an easy on relationship with their conscience. They are pretty easy on about Tory policy because if push came to shove they would pay health insurance, may already have it, and anyway agressively ensure their kids go to the better schools so more grammar schools etc would just ease the efforts they have to make. And heigh ho, less taxation of their corporate employers might mean more in their pockets, because after all they aren't the wage slaves, they leave that to the less fortunate.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 2:05 pm

I think seven's my record,I blame not wearing glasses and squinting through a cloud of smoke.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 2:07 pm

It has emerged that the attack on the Borussia Dortmund team bus last week was almost certainly the work of a far right group.

Who tried to make people think it was the work of "eeevil Muslamics".

I await the considered commentary on this by Liddle, Farage, Hopkins and all the other usual suspects.

Is there any yet?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 17 Apr, 2017 2:13 pm

The Tories haven't really gone for Corbyn over Venezuela yet. I think that's a good line for them.

Do the public really support Labour borrowing £350bn for a national investment bank? I bet they don't after the Tories have framed it for them.

I said before, they had to avoid scary big numbers. They haven't. Did they think that the problem with Labour was that nobody thought it would spent money?