Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Mr Moose]

They'll cut it so he looks bad whatever he does - even if his performance were unimpeachable he would have twitter liberals wittering about how he blew it because he didn't wear a tie or whatever. The more voters Corbyn addresses directly, the more voters he will get - he needs to be on the road doing as many public meetings as possible.

He'll get torn apart outside of London if not preaching to the converted.

 

[The Pale King]

He'll get torn apart outside of London if not preaching to the converted.

A risk worth taking

 

[Mr Moose]

A risk worth taking

Maybe, but to say what? I don't think he has yet defined a 'Corbynism' to offer the voters. Some good stuff about fairness and investment for work and infrastructure perhaps, but statesman/rebel, it's never clear. He just comes across as a decent person prone to vacillation. Not someone who can set an agenda.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I really don't, we're not going to agree, that's fine, I just want you to explain and defend your position, I've asked you how we get from here to social democracy by campaigning for and electing neo-liberal labour parties, you don't engage with this at all. Your only response is that they are not the tories. So in extremis, when the tories are saying they will end all public services bar police, courts and military, and Labour say oh no, that's terrible, we'll keep the roads publicly owned, well except motorways maybe. You'd say we must protect our essential services by voting for labour. If not, then where is the line? What is the point where Labour have given up so much you won't go further? Because right now your logic is simply Labour > Tories, regardless of the policies labour has, which means the running down of public services, vulnerable people being fucked over, when Labour are a right wing party, as they have been up until Corbyn (and now are just very, very split).

If Labour went to 2025 with PFI on their policy books, would you say no, don't vote Labour? Of course not, you would say vote Labour to keep out the tories. So this doesn't affect your position at all.
btw, 100% publicly funded NHS doesn't mean publicly owned. It could easily mean privatised with state provided health insurance. You will go for that over full privatisation of the NHS by the tories. Then they'll add restrictions, conditions, limits, sanctions onto the public health insurance, until it's so useless it's worthless. You will embrace that and destroy the NHS, because the tories would privatise it fully in one step, and Labour will take a few. How is that protection?

In 2015 you were arguing to vote for the Labour party, which ran on a platform of austerity, because they weren't taking that austerity as far as the tories. How would electing a party that would implement austerity bring about social democracy ever?

I'm not waiting for anything, unless by waiting you mean taking action. If by waiting for the right conditions, you mean taking action to create the right conditions. But of course not. Do you not see how disrespectful it is to me to accuse me of fucking over vulnerable people by waiting for something that might never happen when I've spent the time to start to explain to you the ideas behind the actions I am taking to protect the services we have that support everyone? You don't need to call someone a fucking cunt to be disrespectful to them, you are just as insulting in that final paragraph to me as PM or RS have been to you. Everything I've said on this thread and you think I'm sitting around waiting for the roll of the dice. The actions I've been taking over the past 8 years have contributed to creating the conditions under which Corbyn got nominated and then elected as leader, at least some chance for a social democratic party. You would just continue to argue for austerity as long it's done by Labour.

You may have contributed to Corbyn becoming leader, but all that’s done is ensure we have a tory government for the next decade and probably longer. Was that really part of the long term plan for social democracy?

It was obvious before his election that Corbyn’s leadership would make Labour unelectable and I argued that at the time on here (and got called a fucking cunt for daring to say it then as well). The counter ‘argument’ was that he appealed to young voters and that he had a good chance of winning in 2020 because people will be crying out for change by then. No one seems to be saying that now having taken them 18 months to wake up.

You ask me to defend my position but that is what I’ve been doing repeatedly. I’ve already explained why I don’t accept your premise that a Labour administration investing more in public services will delay what you call ‘real change’ and I certainly don’t agree that Labour governments just do exactly what tory governments do but in slow motion.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

1) so don't judge the party by its enthusiasm for gentrification and imposing austerity. Yeh right. Did you not see what Labour did in its last 13 years in national government?

2) will you read the fucking questions you ask you numpty twat, is it too much to expect? Why not think in future about the sort of answer you desire and frame your enquiry accordingly.

Why don’t you try actually reading the questions and then answering them?...

You started off by saying that democracy can’t bring change and then you said that military coups and revolutions can. So do you think an anti democratic coup or revolution is viable way of getting rid of this tory government?

iirc you're a tory.

Still don’t get it do you? The tories are relishing Corbyn’s leadership.

 

[yield]

Still don’t get it do you? The tories are relishing Corbyn’s leadership.

They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why don’t you try actually reading the questions and then answering them?...

You started off by saying that democracy can’t bring change and then you said that military coups and revolutions can. So do you think an anti democratic coup or revolution is viable way of getting rid of this tory government?



Still don’t get it do you? The tories are relishing Corbyn’s leadership.

Do brush up your comprehension. I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I also said there are ways to change government without democracy. And there are, military coups and revolution. These are simply points you clearly don't understand. So as far as I can see there's no point you returning to this.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Do brush up your comprehension. I said you can't vote a fairer society into being. I also said there are ways to change government without democracy. And there are, military coups and revolution. These are simply points you clearly don't understand. So as far as I can see there's no point you returning to this.

You need to develop this 'argument'. How do we get rid of the tories with a military coup or revolution???

 

[Pickman's model]

You need to develop this 'argument'. How do we get rid of the tories with a military coup or revolution???

how true the biblical proverb is:

As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly

 

[rutabowa]

They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.

are you corbyn then?!
nice work imo, fuck the haters.

 

[DotCommunist]

corbyn feeds on it to grow stronger. Probably

 

[BigTom]

You may have contributed to Corbyn becoming leader, but all that’s done is ensure we have a tory government for the next decade and probably longer. Was that really part of the long term plan for social democracy?

It was obvious before his election that Corbyn’s leadership would make Labour unelectable and I argued that at the time on here (and got called a fucking cunt for daring to say it then as well). The counter ‘argument’ was that he appealed to young voters and that he had a good chance of winning in 2020 because people will be crying out for change by then. No one seems to be saying that now having taken them 18 months to wake up.

You ask me to defend my position but that is what I’ve been doing repeatedly. I’ve already explained why I don’t accept your premise that a Labour administration investing more in public services will delay what you call ‘real change’ and I certainly don’t agree that Labour governments just do exactly what tory governments do but in slow motion.

2010: Tories say they will eliminate the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cuting public services.
Labour say this is too much and they will do the same, more slowly. Eliminating the half the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cutting public services but slower.

2015: Obviously this didn't work, so the tories and labour say the same again. Both austerity, Tories all in 5 years, Labour half in 5 years.

Exactly the same, but in slow motion.

If in 2015, Labour had won, we'd have austerity now. How will that lead to social democracy and investment in our economy in the next decade?

If in 2015, Corbyn had not won and either Burnham or Harnham had, they would be standing in 2020 on a platform of austerity. Slower austerity than the tories will, but austerity nonetheless. You supported this by supporting, presumably, one of those two over Corbyn or Kendall. If you supported Kendall then it's just even more austerity and you didn't support Corbyn. How would an austerity platform led labour party lead to social democracy in the next decade? If Burnham or Harnam had won in 2015 and led the party to electoral victory in 2020, how would you go from their austerity to social democracy in 2025 or 2030? Wouldn't you be arguing for austerity as the electable option over the tories? Wouldn't that just cement austerity as the key economic policy?

Now let's look to the future.
Lets assume that in 2020, Corbyn loses and resigns or is challenged as leader.
Two outcomes here - either we get someone to the right of Corbyn (most likely) who will parrot social democratic policies (like Owen Smith did) or someone around Corbyn who will push social democratic policies.

So in 2025 Labour stand on a social democratic platform, instead of a neo-liberal one. Investment in our services and economy, not austerity and cuts.

This has only happened because Corbyn was elected leader. This shifted the internal labour party overton window to the left - suddenly it was clear that social democratic polices are in the popular/sensible range and surprise surprise the right of the party take those policies on board.
Had you got one of the others elected, none of the right of the labour party would be talking about social democracy and austerity would still be the central economic policy of the labour party.

So the way I see it is that if what you wanted had succeeded post 2015 election (or if Labour had won in 2015) we'd not have the option of social democratic party at all. Now we might and Corbyn getting elected is central to this, crucial in fact, whether he wins in 2020 or not.

 

[Mr Moose]

2010: Tories say they will eliminate the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cuting public services.
Labour say this is too much and they will do the same, more slowly. Eliminating the half the deficit in 5 years, through austerity = cutting public services but slower.

2015: Obviously this didn't work, so the tories and labour say the same again. Both austerity, Tories all in 5 years, Labour half in 5 years.

Exactly the same, but in slow motion.

If in 2015, Labour had won, we'd have austerity now. How will that lead to social democracy and investment in our economy in the next decade?

If in 2015, Corbyn had not won and either Burnham or Harnham had, they would be standing in 2020 on a platform of austerity. Slower austerity than the tories will, but austerity nonetheless. You supported this by supporting, presumably, one of those two over Corbyn or Kendall. If you supported Kendall then it's just even more austerity and you didn't support Corbyn. How would an austerity platform led labour party lead to social democracy in the next decade? If Burnham or Harnam had won in 2015 and led the party to electoral victory in 2020, how would you go from their austerity to social democracy in 2025 or 2030? Wouldn't you be arguing for austerity as the electable option over the tories? Wouldn't that just cement austerity as the key economic policy?

Now let's look to the future.
Lets assume that in 2020, Corbyn loses and resigns or is challenged as leader.
Two outcomes here - either we get someone to the right of Corbyn (most likely) who will parrot social democratic policies (like Owen Smith did) or someone around Corbyn who will push social democratic policies.

So in 2025 Labour stand on a social democratic platform, instead of a neo-liberal one. Investment in our services and economy, not austerity and cuts.

This has only happened because Corbyn was elected leader. This shifted the internal labour party overton window to the left - suddenly it was clear that social democratic polices are in the popular/sensible range and surprise surprise the right of the party take those policies on board.
Had you got one of the others elected, none of the right of the labour party would be talking about social democracy and austerity would still be the central economic policy of the labour party.

So the way I see it is that if what you wanted had succeeded post 2015 election (or if Labour had won in 2015) we'd not have the option of social democratic party at all. Now we might and Corbyn getting elected is central to this, crucial in fact, whether he wins in 2020 or not.

There are logical flaws in this. It wouldn't simply have been the same. Deficit reduction would have come from different sources, less QE, maybe higher growth. Do you seriously think that Labour would have taken 40% out of Local Government and introduced a bedroom tax?

You are correct that Labour would have managed the economy, not all of it palatable, that privatisation would not have been rolled back, but this lumpen equivalence does not help your argument. I can't imagine Corbyn even agreeing with it, party man he is.

 

[BigTom]

There are logical flaws in this. It wouldn't simply have been the same. Deficit reduction would have come from different sources, less QE, maybe higher growth. Do you seriously think that Labour would have taken 40% out of Local Government and introduced a bedroom tax?

You are correct that Labour would have managed the economy, not all of it palatable, that privatisation would not have been rolled back, but this lumpen equivalence does not help your argument. I can't imagine Corbyn even agreeing with it, party man he is.

All we can talk about are the platforms they ran on, which in 2010 was to reduce half the deficit by 2015, through public sector spending cuts. In 2015 it was the same by 2020. Do you dispute that? Do we need to try to find their manifestos to memory check? Austerity-light I seem to remember it being called. The same ideas, the same methods, just less of it, slower. I think Labour would have got closer to their target than the Tories did and of course things would diverge as a result, counterfactuals are difficult. The key point/question stands regardless - how does electing a party following austerity lead us to social democracy? Whether that's full throttle austerity or a lesser version, it's still heading the wrong way.

They would have cut 20% off local government spending - half what the tories did (I assume 40% is what the tories did and that's why you are quoting that figure, Birmingham is going to end up around 50% gone). Bedroom tax specifically maybe not but labour abstained on the welfare bill that brought in the benefit cap, they voted for the retroactive legislation that stopped £120m in illegal sanctions being returned to clients, they introduced ESA and the WCA in 2008, and workfare before then. They increased sanctions on JSA before the tories came in in 2010 and picked up that ball and ran with it so very, very hard. Labour's recent record on social security (prior to Corbyn) is abysmal. If not the bedroom tax then something else.

 

[treelover]

Have your say in the development of Labour policy


Labour are doing public consultations inc social security.

 

[Mr Moose]

All we can talk about are the platforms they ran on, which in 2010 was to reduce half the deficit by 2015, through public sector spending cuts. In 2015 it was the same by 2020. Do you dispute that? Do we need to try to find their manifestos to memory check? Austerity-light I seem to remember it being called. The same ideas, the same methods, just less of it, slower. I think Labour would have got closer to their target than the Tories did and of course things would diverge as a result, counterfactuals are difficult. The key point/question stands regardless - how does electing a party following austerity lead us to social democracy? Whether that's full throttle austerity or a lesser version, it's still heading the wrong way.

They would have cut 20% off local government spending - half what the tories did (I assume 40% is what the tories did and that's why you are quoting that figure, Birmingham is going to end up around 50% gone). Bedroom tax specifically maybe not but labour abstained on the welfare bill that brought in the benefit cap, they voted for the retroactive legislation that stopped £120m in illegal sanctions being returned to clients, they introduced ESA and the WCA in 2008, and workfare before then. They increased sanctions on JSA before the tories came in in 2010 and picked up that ball and ran with it so very, very hard. Labour's recent record on social security (prior to Corbyn) is abysmal. If not the bedroom tax then something else.

If you want to consider all platforms they ran on delivered then you have presume they would have delivered on other pledges, some positive. But a Labour Govt would also have been easier to lean on and lobby and would also have had plenty of people in it who like to grow the state rather than shrink it. It would have been more up for grabs.

I can't disagree that austerity was a shitty platform to run, but it's just not all the same, foreign adventures aside.

 

[Spreadit]

So how come Jeremy Corbyn needs no bodyguards yet we pay millions of pounds for Tony Blair to have bodyguards?? Yeah the real threat to our society.

The difference is ones a man of peace and love and isn't a threat to the ordinary people and the other is a man of war and hate who needs protection.

One man cares more about money and himself over the ordinary people and the other cares about us all and would rather put the money into the NHS and social care than it paying for bodyguards.

 

[Supine]

So how come Jeremy Corbyn needs no bodyguards yet we pay millions of pounds for Tony Blair to have bodyguards?? Yeah the real threat to our society.

The difference is ones a man of peace and love and isn't a threat to the ordinary people and the other is a man of war and hate who needs protection.

One man cares more about money and himself over the ordinary people and the other cares about us all and would rather put the money into the NHS and social care than it paying for bodyguards.

Welcome to the boards Jezza

 

[redsquirrel]

If you want to consider all platforms they ran on delivered then you have presume they would have delivered on other pledges, some positive. But a Labour Govt would also have been easier to lean on and lobby and would also have had plenty of people in it who like to grow the state rather than shrink it. It would have been more up for grabs.

Based on what evidence? The historic record shows time and again (McDonald, Callaghan, Blair/Brown) Labour governments and Labour councils cutting services and attacking the welfare state. In other countries - Ireland, Australia, US, France, Greece - Labour's sister parties in power during/after the GFC didn't defend what remained of the welfare state in those countries they attacked it.

 

[Mr Moose]

Based on what evidence? The historic record shows time and again (McDonald, Callaghan, Blair/Brown) Labour governments and Labour councils cutting services and attacking the welfare state. In other countries - Ireland, Australia, US, France, Greece - Labour's sister parties in power during/after the GFC didn't defend what remained of the welfare state in those countries they attacked it.

Nonsensical if you mean state provision per se. Has it always shrunk since 1945 or have the Tories grown it for Labour to cut it? Labour must have grown it sometimes.

 

[redsquirrel]

How does that answer my points?

I've pointed out that past Labour governments during crises of capitalism have attacked the welfare state, that the equivalent parties to Labour in other countries that were in government during the latest crisis cut services and attacked workers. So where is your evidence that Labour, despite arguing for austerity light, despite spending 12 years in power slicing at the foundations of the welfare state, despite being opposed to even social democracy for 30 odd years, could have been pushed from attacking services if they had been elected in 2015?

 

[J Ed]

How does that answer my points?

I've pointed out that past Labour governments during crises of capitalism have attacked the welfare state, that the equivalent parties to Labour in other countries that were in government during the latest crisis cut services and attacked workers. So where is your evidence that Labour, despite arguing for austerity light, despite spending 12 years in power slicing at the foundations of the welfare state, despite being opposed to even social democracy for 30 odd years, wouldn't have attacked services if they had been elected in 2015?

In fact, if this somehow did not happen then it would be against what the Labour Party promised. Rachael Reeves boasted that Labour would be tougher on welfare than the Tories.

 

[Mr Moose]

How does that answer my points?

I've pointed out that past Labour governments during crises of capitalism have attacked the welfare state, that the equivalent parties to Labour in other countries that were in government during the latest crisis cut services and attacked workers. So where is your evidence that Labour, despite arguing for austerity light, despite spending 12 years in power slicing at the foundations of the welfare state, despite being opposed to even social democracy for 30 odd years, could have been pushed from attacking services if they had been elected in 2015?

It answers your point that Labour have not always cut services. Blair and Brown invested considerably in the NHS and Education and social care just about kept up with demographics. They doubled their 'return' through privatisation in ancillary services and social care it is true. I'm certainly not arguing that the latter approach was correct.

Big Tom had posited they would certainly have kept their manifesto pledges. I merely pointed out that If that was the case it would be both good and bad then. It is argument upon a premise. Labour promised to deal with the deficit, but also to restore the 50% higher tax rate, freeze energy bills, scrap the bedroom tax etc. The 'economy' has 'grown' and the Tories have frittered this opportunity without barely touching the deficit. Labour would have been better I believe.

I'm not arguing for a shift to the right. I don't think right wing electability is even likely to gain many votes. I don't see a problem with Corbyn's policies and think Labour should stand very firmly as a party that offers doing things together and social solutions against antisocial individualism. I don't think Jeremy can get that vision across though.

 

[redsquirrel]

Labour haven't attacked the working class when working class power has forced them not to. Every other time - in the 30s when they went in coalition with the Tories - in the 70s when they attacked unions - in the 00s when they embarked on the policy of austerity.

New Labour spent 8 years attacking the welfare state before the GFC, the fact that you're using them as an example of when Labour defend public services shows just how weak your argument is. As for manifesto commitments, well if you seriously believe then you're even more naive than you've come across so far. Labour might argue for 'freezing energy bills' (how exactly where they intending to achieve this) or scrapping the bedroom tax but no one with any sense would believe them any more than they'd believe the promises Irish Labour or PASOK made and broke.

Time and again Labour has shown that when the chips are down it takes the side of capital - see the miners strike, the poll tax, the attacks it's currently carrying out.

 

[BigTom]

It answers your point that Labour have not always cut services. Blair and Brown invested considerably in the NHS and Education and social care just about kept up with demographics. They doubled their 'return' through privatisation in ancillary services and social care it is true. I'm certainly not arguing that the latter approach was correct.

Big Tom had posited they would certainly have kept their manifesto pledges. I merely pointed out that If that was the case it would be both good and bad then. It is argument upon a premise. Labour promised to deal with the deficit, but also to restore the 50% higher tax rate, freeze energy bills, scrap the bedroom tax etc. The 'economy' has 'grown' and the Tories have frittered this opportunity without barely touching the deficit. Labour would have been better I believe.

I'm not arguing for a shift to the right. I don't think right wing electability is even likely to gain many votes. I don't see a problem with Corbyn's policies and think Labour should stand very firmly as a party that offers doing things together and social solutions against antisocial individualism. I don't think Jeremy can get that vision across though.

I mean it's difficult isn't it, because when do politicians ever keep to their manifesto promises? Whatever the exact details, I'm sure Labour would have pursued austerity as their overarching economic policy. I reckon they probably would have restored the 50% tax rate, I doubt they would have been freezing energy bills (is that even legal? these are private companies, and even so it's a liberal/neo-liberal policy to control the prices rather than nationalisation/public ownership which would be the social democratic response) or scrapping the bedroom tax. I didn't pay any attention to the details of their manifesto because I was never going to vote for a party pursuing austerity so I really don't know what else there is.

My main point in all of this isn't whether there would have been marginal differences between the two, it's that with austerity as the central economic policy, voting labour would never lead to social democracy, so even where there are marginal differences, it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.

 

[brogdale]

I mean it's difficult isn't it, because when do politicians ever keep to their manifesto promises? Whatever the exact details, I'm sure Labour would have pursued austerity as their overarching economic policy. I reckon they probably would have restored the 50% tax rate, I doubt they would have been freezing energy bills (is that even legal? these are private companies, and even so it's a liberal/neo-liberal policy to control the prices rather than nationalisation/public ownership which would be the social democratic response) or scrapping the bedroom tax. I didn't pay any attention to the details of their manifesto because I was never going to vote for a party pursuing austerity so I really don't know what else there is.

My main point in all of this isn't whether there would have been marginal differences between the two, it's that with austerity as the central economic policy, voting labour would never lead to social democracy, so even where there are marginal differences, it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.

And, all the time the state is beholden on the usury of financialised capital for much of its operation, this will be the case...whatever party wins the right to tax the workers. The policy 'window' being restricted to that permitted by those controlling the supply of funding via bond markets.
Until and unless a government defaults on these debts to capital, nothing substantive will change.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I mean it's difficult isn't it, because when do politicians ever keep to their manifesto promises? Whatever the exact details, I'm sure Labour would have pursued austerity as their overarching economic policy. I reckon they probably would have restored the 50% tax rate, I doubt they would have been freezing energy bills (is that even legal? these are private companies, and even so it's a liberal/neo-liberal policy to control the prices rather than nationalisation/public ownership which would be the social democratic response) or scrapping the bedroom tax. I didn't pay any attention to the details of their manifesto because I was never going to vote for a party pursuing austerity so I really don't know what else there is.

My main point in all of this isn't whether there would have been marginal differences between the two, it's that with austerity as the central economic policy, voting labour would never lead to social democracy, so even where there are marginal differences, it's not strategically beneficial to pursue getting labour elected on an austerity platform, as this will not take us towards social democracy.

Labour need to be seen as economically competent and that means a plan to reduce the deficit and that means austerity, even within that there is room for manoeuvre. Letting the tories have successive governments will not bring around social democracy either.

 

[Old Spark]

I dunno all these rationalists arguing on here on the head of a pin .

Its Karma man -little england gets its come uppance -all parties ,dave,cleggy,blair,brown ,jezza,maybe,boris,gove,nigel ,labours registered supporters all dancing to the power of the inevitable.

Meanwhile Momentum and Landsman in shock horror secret tape plot says fat tom.

What can it all mean -I think we should be told

 

[BigTom]

Labour need to be seen as economically competent and that means a plan to reduce the deficit and that means austerity, even within that there is room for manoeuvre. Letting the tories have successive governments will not bring around social democracy either.

Why is austerity seen as economically competent? In 2010, the Tories claimed they would reduce the deficit to zero over 5 years. They got halfway, which doesn't sound competent to me. Why isn't a social democratic strategy of investment in the economy producing jobs and growth which increase tax revenues and decrease social security spending (alongside other benefits such as cheaper housing, more sustainable housing, energy production and transportation) as well as direct income (surpluses from rents from social housing & energy production) to govt, that will lead to deficit reduction seen as economically competent?

Implicit in your statement is that you think that voting for austerity will not bring about social democracy, do you believe it is impossible to get back what we have lost since the 70s? That the best we can hope for is to lose more of our services but slower? In a different order?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Why is austerity seen as economically competent? In 2010, the Tories claimed they would reduce the deficit to zero over 5 years. They got halfway, which doesn't sound competent to me. Why isn't a social democratic strategy of investment in the economy producing jobs and growth which increase tax revenues and decrease social security spending (alongside other benefits such as cheaper housing, more sustainable housing, energy production and transportation) as well as direct income (surpluses from rents from social housing & energy production) to govt, that will lead to deficit reduction seen as economically competent?

Because it means increasing spending and therefore increasing the deficit. I do agree that investing will bring rewards, but it still means spending money we haven't got at the moment and that idea won't go.

Implicit in your statement is that you think that voting for austerity will not bring about social democracy, do you believe it is impossible to get back what we have lost since the 70s? That the best we can hope for is to lose more of our services but slower? In a different order?

Why is it implicit?. The economic situation could improve but there would be a tory government in power and they won't bring it about..