This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/live/2017/may/11/what-do-you-think-of-the-labour-manifesto-join-us-for-a-live-discussion-on-friday
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| What do you think of the Labour manifesto? Join us for a live discussion | What do you think of the Labour manifesto? Join us for a live discussion |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 12.30pm BST | |
| 12:30 | |
| 'Labour faces the mother-of-all uphill battles' | |
| Reader Maternityadvice is a fan of the manifesto, but wary of the press: | |
| I think the 2017 Labour Manifesto is a welcome breath of fresh air. I hope every Labour candidate will go out and inspire the public with it. I also hope they will point out the ways in which the right wing press, including the BBC, is trying to turn people against policies that will give them much better rights and a much kinder and more hopeful future. | |
| As we know, Labour face the mother-of-all uphill battles, and as you note, almost the entire British press is hostile. It's worth noting that the British press are aggressively opposed to all of the individual policies, but polls nonetheless show they have huge support among the British public, which demonstrates that the idea the press simply represent their readers' view is untrue. You're right about the importance of campaigning, though. Though the press play a devastatingly important role in defining the terms of political debate in this country, people aren't robots or sheep who are programmed what to think. Labour has a huge grassroots army which can get its message across - and if you're one of those who want to stop a terrible Tory landslide, time to get out there and campaign! | |
| 12.22pm BST | |
| 12:22 | |
| Zoe Williams | |
| Let’s hear from Nat, another Guardian Member, via email: | |
| I started as a somewhat sceptical Corbyn supporter (I put him second in the first leadership race, then didn’t vote in the second), but over time became slowly disillusioned ... However this manifesto is more up my alley than I could have ever hoped for, proposing all the things that I want and seemingly proposing them in a manner that I think will be popular. My worry (and question) is will this lead to all these ideas being totally discredited if Corbyn doesn’t win? If Corbyn does lose then I think this will be down to how much people dislike Corbyn’s leadership and his public perception rather than the ideas in this manifesto, but do you think that the more right-leaning aspects of the party will use this to attempt to sweep away all the Corbyn policies that are proposed in this manifesto in a bid to be seen as “more electable” when the next election comes around? | |
| Hi Nat, me too, on every count. I started in the same place, have had the same disillusionment, now have the same anxieties. I think, whatever happens, whether Corbyn loses big or small or even wins, there will be a bitter fight afterwards, as he maintains they lost because they weren’t left wing enough, and his party’s centrists try to get closer to a “mainstream” which, itself, is becoming more and more right-wing. All my energies are going into trying to forge a progressive alliance, so that the important issues – environment, equality, dignity in the workplace and beyond, what ambitious modernity looks like – aren’t lost in the scramble to look “realistic”, while the talents within the party and beyond, among Lib Dems, Greens, WEP etc, are cherished rather than pitted against each other. Come to the launch on Monday! | |
| 12.18pm BST | |
| 12:18 | |
| Here’s an exchange that’s getting you talking – on the issue of nationalisation. | |
| Corbyn's critics will say that Britain cannot afford these policies. | |
| But this country used to have nationalised railways and utilities, until the 1990s. So one of the following must be true: | |
| - Either Corbyn's critics are making dishonest, doom-laden forecasts to scare voters for political purposes (another Project Fear)- Or Britain is poorer than it used to be. In which case, this reflects an abject failure of the free market, laissez faire, neoliberal and globalist economic model that we've used for the past 40 years courtesy of Thatcherism and Blairism. | |
| Either way - Corbyn is right. | |
| And this reader agrees the focus shouldn’t just be on rail. | |
| Not just railways and utilities. B Airways, Post Office Telephones, Coal, Steel, some pubs, Rolls Royce, British Leyland, Shipping, BR hotels etc. All paid for by thr state. As Keith Joseph complained Britain was said to be the most socialist country apart from the Soviet Union. Talking to some elderly people they tell me people were more happier. The basic rate of tax was 33% and VAT was only about 8% I think. | |
| What do you think? Get involved in the discussion by clicking the links on the comments. | |
| 12.10pm BST | |
| 12:10 | |
| 'It's a bit rich of the Tories to talk about "back to the 1970s"' | |
| Back to the comments again now, and a question from ElderlyGoose: | |
| I like the manifesto. It’s refreshing as it covers a lot of things that effect me daily but not just me but my family, friends and coworkers. It’s the first time in years I can remember being interested to read a manifesto. | |
| The main problem I have with it is the negative spin. If there’s real negative points I’d like to hear them but the nonsense spin, “back to 1970” isn’t helping. | |
| Labour have to hammer away that this is a forward-looking manifesto (which it is). Our infrastructure is creaking, particularly outside of London: we need to be able to invest, upgrade and modernise. Also a bit rich of the Tories to talk about 'back to the 1970s' when their flagship pledges currently include grammar schools and ripping foxes apart. | |
| 12.05pm BST | |
| 12:05 | |
| 'The hostile press will say the sums don’t add up even if they are historically watertight' | |
| Hugh Muir | |
| I’d also like to address ther question Eric asks, which Owen Jones has answered below. | |
| I think it’s going to be hard to make a judgement until next week when we see the full manifesto and the costings. A word of caution, the hostile press will say the sums don’t add up even if they are historically watertight. To some extent that will be because we stick to a long established, and many would say, a tired template about how revenue can credibly be raised and about what the spending priorities should be. If Labour encourages blue sky thinking about that template - so we spend talk about spending less on useless weaponry and vanity projects and more on social care, schools, for example, that would be a good thing and quite in spirit of these times when so many assumptions are being questioned. | |
| So there are two issues here 1) Do Labour’s sums add up within the financial template we use? 2) Shouldn’t we now do away, or at least seriously question with that template? | |
| 12.04pm BST | |
| 12:04 | |
| Keep your questions coming. We’ll continue to post some of the most interesting exchanges up here, and our writers will do their best to continue to get involved below the line. | |
| 11.57am BST | |
| 11:57 | |
| Reader localnotail is in the comments in Birmingham: | |
| I would like to know what specific measures will be brought into place to help cities across the regions who have seen their public services pared down to a bare minimum by austerity. | |
| Here in Birmingham, the £560m Council budget cuts since 2010 have brought the city to its knees. So much has already been lost, with more to come under current funding. | |
| What hope can Labour offer us worried Brummies (and the similarly screwed Scousers, and the rest of the UK) that this will be addressed? Will we even still have our wonderful public parks by 2020? | |
| Local government was a big miss. I don't recall anything about the regressive council tax nor about this government's determined push to offload spending onto city halls. Nor did I detect any serious thinking about the role local government could play in developing local economies. And - on a different but related subject - no sign of any new thinking about the NHS reconfiguration and its relationship with social care which is at the heart of sustainability of the health service. More money is essential, but so is reform. | |
| And here’s a response – you can join the conversation by clicking the links to the comments. | |
| If Labour really want to gain power then they need to address the regions directly and try to get their traditional heartlands back on side. We have been abandoned by everyone, that's why UKIP have flourished. OK, many of the UKIP lot are Empire-drunk profiteerers who are frightened of people who don't speak English and want to be rich by becoming unregulated. But a lot of them are just regular British people who have seen their region's funding dry up and their public services fail, and no-one has stopped it. Just look at the most articulate guy on the UKIP Party Political Broadcast - right at the start. https://youtu.be/eghZ7mE-MFA?t=29s - He's a Labour guy, but he thinks they aren't listening. | |
| 11.50am BST | 11.50am BST |
| 11:50 | 11:50 |
| Owen Jones | Owen Jones |
| Here’s Guardian Member Eric, via email: | Here’s Guardian Member Eric, via email: |
| Critics of Labour’s spending plans say either a) they are unaffordable, full stop; or b) the measures used to pay for them will damage the economy in the long run (e.g. by hitting corporations, wealth creators etc). How is anyone supposed to make sense of this and where do we find the truth? In the end, should we just make a gut judgement based on our existing worldview? If so, where does that leave the undecided? | Critics of Labour’s spending plans say either a) they are unaffordable, full stop; or b) the measures used to pay for them will damage the economy in the long run (e.g. by hitting corporations, wealth creators etc). How is anyone supposed to make sense of this and where do we find the truth? In the end, should we just make a gut judgement based on our existing worldview? If so, where does that leave the undecided? |
| One of the big problems which has caused Labour to struggle is the failure to explain what happened in the financial crash. The Tories backed every single penny Labour spent before the crash: it was only weeks after Lehman Brothers collapsed when the Tories began to claim that overspending was the cause of Britain’s economic ailments, rather than the small matter of a global financial collapse. This myth was cemented in the aftermath of the 2010 general election, when Labour embarked on an introspective leadership campaign. The party never recovered, allowing the Tories to ask (convincingly) in the 2015 general election campaign: why hand the keys back to the driver who crashed the car? | One of the big problems which has caused Labour to struggle is the failure to explain what happened in the financial crash. The Tories backed every single penny Labour spent before the crash: it was only weeks after Lehman Brothers collapsed when the Tories began to claim that overspending was the cause of Britain’s economic ailments, rather than the small matter of a global financial collapse. This myth was cemented in the aftermath of the 2010 general election, when Labour embarked on an introspective leadership campaign. The party never recovered, allowing the Tories to ask (convincingly) in the 2015 general election campaign: why hand the keys back to the driver who crashed the car? |
| Labour’s 2015 manifesto was fully costed in a way the Tory manifesto wasn’t (and the Tories thought they’d negotiate away some of those pledges in a post-election coalition). But it didn’t matter, because the party had been defined in the public eye by the Tories and their media allies, and Labour had failed to effectively combat that myth. | Labour’s 2015 manifesto was fully costed in a way the Tory manifesto wasn’t (and the Tories thought they’d negotiate away some of those pledges in a post-election coalition). But it didn’t matter, because the party had been defined in the public eye by the Tories and their media allies, and Labour had failed to effectively combat that myth. |
| Labour have promised they’ll fully cost this transformational manifesto – but the myth of 2008 still hangs around their neck, and the party (unfairly) will have to fight so much harder to prove its sums add up. And let’s not forget: most voters don’t pour over manifestos, they very occasionally zone in to the campaign and make a gut judgement. | Labour have promised they’ll fully cost this transformational manifesto – but the myth of 2008 still hangs around their neck, and the party (unfairly) will have to fight so much harder to prove its sums add up. And let’s not forget: most voters don’t pour over manifestos, they very occasionally zone in to the campaign and make a gut judgement. |
| Updated | |
| at 11.59am BST | |
| 11.45am BST | 11.45am BST |
| 11:45 | 11:45 |
| Zoe Williams | Zoe Williams |
| Here’s a question from Rupert, received via email: | Here’s a question from Rupert, received via email: |
| Given the inevitable claims that Labour’s manifesto plucks fruit from the “magic money tree”, how can the left start to change wider public understanding of how the economy works?Hey Rupert. The New Economics Foundation is doing some brilliant analysis of people’s perception of the economy – I’m actually not sure if I’m allowed to talk about this yet, but what the hell – and found the two core misconceptions, driving the idea that we’re broke and we can’t afford anything, were these: first, the economy as a bucket, a finite pot from which too many people were trying to take out and not enough putting in; second, the “functioning” economy as a thing of the past. People often couldn’t name a time when they thought things were going well – we were in a debt bubble in the 90s and 00s, skint in the 80s, on strike for the 70s and in a hedonistic stupor for the 60s. They had to go back to the 50s before they could think of a time when we were a decent, thrifty, exporting, self-sufficient and profitable nation. This, obviously, is driving the Theresa May and the “Keep Calm and Carry On” nostalgia fest. | Given the inevitable claims that Labour’s manifesto plucks fruit from the “magic money tree”, how can the left start to change wider public understanding of how the economy works?Hey Rupert. The New Economics Foundation is doing some brilliant analysis of people’s perception of the economy – I’m actually not sure if I’m allowed to talk about this yet, but what the hell – and found the two core misconceptions, driving the idea that we’re broke and we can’t afford anything, were these: first, the economy as a bucket, a finite pot from which too many people were trying to take out and not enough putting in; second, the “functioning” economy as a thing of the past. People often couldn’t name a time when they thought things were going well – we were in a debt bubble in the 90s and 00s, skint in the 80s, on strike for the 70s and in a hedonistic stupor for the 60s. They had to go back to the 50s before they could think of a time when we were a decent, thrifty, exporting, self-sufficient and profitable nation. This, obviously, is driving the Theresa May and the “Keep Calm and Carry On” nostalgia fest. |
| Part of the problem is a failure of education. A lot of it is media failure, journalists not caring to understand where money actually comes from, and talking scornfully about the “magic money tree” as though QE didn’t exist and GDP expansion was down to the discovery of Graphene. And MPs have a case to answer: Positive Money did a survey a few years back and found that only one in 10 MPs understood how the bulk of money was created. It sounds abstruse, but actually affects their ability to make a case for social spending. Do you know, the only people I see making a real effort here are the student economists (Rethinking Economics and that other gang whose name I’ve forgotten) who run public meetings and have done serious and sustained work to disseminate better understanding, and Momentum, who ran a load of workshops as part of their World Transformed conference, and have done since then. | Part of the problem is a failure of education. A lot of it is media failure, journalists not caring to understand where money actually comes from, and talking scornfully about the “magic money tree” as though QE didn’t exist and GDP expansion was down to the discovery of Graphene. And MPs have a case to answer: Positive Money did a survey a few years back and found that only one in 10 MPs understood how the bulk of money was created. It sounds abstruse, but actually affects their ability to make a case for social spending. Do you know, the only people I see making a real effort here are the student economists (Rethinking Economics and that other gang whose name I’ve forgotten) who run public meetings and have done serious and sustained work to disseminate better understanding, and Momentum, who ran a load of workshops as part of their World Transformed conference, and have done since then. |
| 11.40am BST | 11.40am BST |
| 11:40 | 11:40 |
| Let’s jump back into the comments now with a question from jameswilliamjacobs2: | Let’s jump back into the comments now with a question from jameswilliamjacobs2: |
| I read through the disability section and thought the policies were excellent, however, and it’s a huge however, I found it was a little negative. We know as a Labour Party what we’re against – so yes, we would scrap the WCA, Scrap the Bedroom Tax and make sure disabled people are protected from austerity. | I read through the disability section and thought the policies were excellent, however, and it’s a huge however, I found it was a little negative. We know as a Labour Party what we’re against – so yes, we would scrap the WCA, Scrap the Bedroom Tax and make sure disabled people are protected from austerity. |
| However, I felt it lacked vision as to what the future is. How does Labour view our welfare system on the future? What are our long term objectives? Sadly, all I saw was plan of reversing the Tory measures of the past seven years. We need more than that IMO. | However, I felt it lacked vision as to what the future is. How does Labour view our welfare system on the future? What are our long term objectives? Sadly, all I saw was plan of reversing the Tory measures of the past seven years. We need more than that IMO. |
| That's my central criticism across the whole collections of proposals: not enough clarity either about what Labour believes post-Brexit Britain should look like, nor new thinking about how to get there. Too many 'easy' answers. For example, there are some good ideas about reforming corporate governance so that employees are in line for some of the proceeds of growth .. but they didn't feel to me as if ithey were embedded in a coherent plan for business .. | That's my central criticism across the whole collections of proposals: not enough clarity either about what Labour believes post-Brexit Britain should look like, nor new thinking about how to get there. Too many 'easy' answers. For example, there are some good ideas about reforming corporate governance so that employees are in line for some of the proceeds of growth .. but they didn't feel to me as if ithey were embedded in a coherent plan for business .. |
| What do other readers think? You can click on the link in the comment to respond directly. | What do other readers think? You can click on the link in the comment to respond directly. |
| 11.35am BST | 11.35am BST |
| 11:35 | 11:35 |
| 'The left needs to work harder to gain a hearing from people who aren’t on the left' | 'The left needs to work harder to gain a hearing from people who aren’t on the left' |
| Hugh Muir | Hugh Muir |
| Being the all singing, all dancing, multi platform media platform we are, we have also had some questions submitted via email. Many are interesting. | Being the all singing, all dancing, multi platform media platform we are, we have also had some questions submitted via email. Many are interesting. |
| Guardian Member Rupert asked: | Guardian Member Rupert asked: |
| Given the inevitable claims that Labour’s manifesto plucks fruit from the “magic money tree”, how can the left start to change wider public understanding of how the economy works? | Given the inevitable claims that Labour’s manifesto plucks fruit from the “magic money tree”, how can the left start to change wider public understanding of how the economy works? |
| I think that as with all perceptions that the left would seek to change, it needs to start with a proper understanding of why people take the positions they do. Theresa May, in that Lynton Crosby inspired cynical but clever way of hers talks about “an economy that works for everyone”. Corbyn/McDonnell by contrast, focus on improving the fortunes of one section of society, the low paid and left behinds, but can too easily be portrayed as seeking to achieve that at the expense of other sections of society whose votes they actually need if Labour is to be electorally successful. I think the left needs to work harder to gain a hearing from people who aren’t on the left. | I think that as with all perceptions that the left would seek to change, it needs to start with a proper understanding of why people take the positions they do. Theresa May, in that Lynton Crosby inspired cynical but clever way of hers talks about “an economy that works for everyone”. Corbyn/McDonnell by contrast, focus on improving the fortunes of one section of society, the low paid and left behinds, but can too easily be portrayed as seeking to achieve that at the expense of other sections of society whose votes they actually need if Labour is to be electorally successful. I think the left needs to work harder to gain a hearing from people who aren’t on the left. |
| 11.30am BST | 11.30am BST |
| 11:30 | 11:30 |
| 'Labour are committed to ending arms sales to repressive regimes' | 'Labour are committed to ending arms sales to repressive regimes' |
| Back to the comments, mymadhamster asks: | Back to the comments, mymadhamster asks: |
| What would an ethical foreign policy look like in the context of Saudi Arabia/Yemen? | What would an ethical foreign policy look like in the context of Saudi Arabia/Yemen? |
| Labour are committed to ending arms sales to repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. I went to a Yemeni refugee camp in Djibouti so I'm very passionate about this issue: British bombs are raining down on Yemen, thousands have been killed in that terrible war, mostly by the Saudi-led coalition. Saudi Arabia not only has a horrifying human rights record: its up to its neck in exporting international extremism which is a threat to our security. The Tories, on the other hand, are committed to even closer relationship with the Saudi regime - so who's really in league with extremism here? | Labour are committed to ending arms sales to repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. I went to a Yemeni refugee camp in Djibouti so I'm very passionate about this issue: British bombs are raining down on Yemen, thousands have been killed in that terrible war, mostly by the Saudi-led coalition. Saudi Arabia not only has a horrifying human rights record: its up to its neck in exporting international extremism which is a threat to our security. The Tories, on the other hand, are committed to even closer relationship with the Saudi regime - so who's really in league with extremism here? |
| 11.21am BST | 11.21am BST |
| 11:21 | 11:21 |
| 'We’ve started accepting that any social spending is an inherently far-left position' | 'We’ve started accepting that any social spending is an inherently far-left position' |
| Zoe Williams | Zoe Williams |
| Here’s a question from Richard, a Guardian Member: | Here’s a question from Richard, a Guardian Member: |
| Some might say that Labour impotently allowed the Conservatives to apply the stereotype of Labour-as-inept-economists and characterise them as responsible for the entire global financial crisis in 2008. To what extent might this manifesto stand as an overdue riposte to the Conservative agenda-setting of recent years? | Some might say that Labour impotently allowed the Conservatives to apply the stereotype of Labour-as-inept-economists and characterise them as responsible for the entire global financial crisis in 2008. To what extent might this manifesto stand as an overdue riposte to the Conservative agenda-setting of recent years? |
| I think you’re right: it was an unforced error of the Miliband era to go into an election allowing the financial crash to be ascribed to their profligacy. It was compounded by what I think was a pretty craven attempt to prove themselves “responsible” but going along with the Conservatives’ cuts to social security following the 2015 election, and indeed, during the coalition era. And I’d add that I think this contributed to a catastrophic lack of confidence among Labour MPs who thought of themselves as “centrists” but couldn’t, in the midst of trying to escape their socially generous image, remember what they were actually for. | I think you’re right: it was an unforced error of the Miliband era to go into an election allowing the financial crash to be ascribed to their profligacy. It was compounded by what I think was a pretty craven attempt to prove themselves “responsible” but going along with the Conservatives’ cuts to social security following the 2015 election, and indeed, during the coalition era. And I’d add that I think this contributed to a catastrophic lack of confidence among Labour MPs who thought of themselves as “centrists” but couldn’t, in the midst of trying to escape their socially generous image, remember what they were actually for. |
| But the manifesto either does one thing or the other: it either responds to the Conservative agenda-setting, and therefore sits squarely in the same agenda, or it rips the agenda up and sets its own. I think this does the latter, and I think it does it well. The tremendous difficulty in creating a new frame is in conjuring the sense of generosity and plenty that progressives need in order to win. We’re nowhere near that yet, and the problem goes back to that lack of confidence: we’ve started accepting that any social spending is an inherently far-left position. If you look back at the 1997 promises, Labour managed to present spending, on health, education etc, as an act of common sense and decency. | But the manifesto either does one thing or the other: it either responds to the Conservative agenda-setting, and therefore sits squarely in the same agenda, or it rips the agenda up and sets its own. I think this does the latter, and I think it does it well. The tremendous difficulty in creating a new frame is in conjuring the sense of generosity and plenty that progressives need in order to win. We’re nowhere near that yet, and the problem goes back to that lack of confidence: we’ve started accepting that any social spending is an inherently far-left position. If you look back at the 1997 promises, Labour managed to present spending, on health, education etc, as an act of common sense and decency. |
| 11.15am BST | 11.15am BST |
| 11:15 | 11:15 |
| First up, reader Annakacat asks in the comments: | First up, reader Annakacat asks in the comments: |
| Do the panel think that this manifesto will force the Tories to come up with a few headline policies to counter the benefits that Labour is promising, and will that be a good thing? | Do the panel think that this manifesto will force the Tories to come up with a few headline policies to counter the benefits that Labour is promising, and will that be a good thing? |
| Hi Annakat, I think the Tories are on to this already. I see there are reports beginning to circulate already about a death tax: good idea, and how else can the many capture at least a small share of the windfall enjoyed by lucky people whose homes have multiplied many times in value. Where are Labour's policies to tackle intergenerational unfairness? | Hi Annakat, I think the Tories are on to this already. I see there are reports beginning to circulate already about a death tax: good idea, and how else can the many capture at least a small share of the windfall enjoyed by lucky people whose homes have multiplied many times in value. Where are Labour's policies to tackle intergenerational unfairness? |
| 11.07am BST | 11.07am BST |
| 11:07 | 11:07 |
| Anne, Owen, Zoe and Hugh are with us below the line now. We’ll post some of their answers to your questions shortly. We’ll also be posting some of their responses to a selection of questions which came in from Guardian Members via email. | Anne, Owen, Zoe and Hugh are with us below the line now. We’ll post some of their answers to your questions shortly. We’ll also be posting some of their responses to a selection of questions which came in from Guardian Members via email. |
| 10.37am BST | 10.37am BST |
| 10:37 | 10:37 |
| Before our writers join us below the line, a little fun ... if you’re into this sort of thing. Our colleague James Walsh has put together this quiz, which aims to find out which historical Labour manifesto best complements your views. | Before our writers join us below the line, a little fun ... if you’re into this sort of thing. Our colleague James Walsh has put together this quiz, which aims to find out which historical Labour manifesto best complements your views. |
| Let us know how you got – we’d be especially interested to hear your thoughts on the current manifesto in a historical context. | Let us know how you got – we’d be especially interested to hear your thoughts on the current manifesto in a historical context. |
| 3.30pm BST | 3.30pm BST |
| 15:30 | 15:30 |
| Post your questions now! | Post your questions now! |
| What would rail nationalisation look like in practice? Would the phasing out of tuition fees work? Can the Labour party build 100,000 new council houses per year? These are all ideas proposed in a Labour manifesto, leaked on Thursday – we’d like to hear your thoughts and questions about the policies and put them to our writers. | What would rail nationalisation look like in practice? Would the phasing out of tuition fees work? Can the Labour party build 100,000 new council houses per year? These are all ideas proposed in a Labour manifesto, leaked on Thursday – we’d like to hear your thoughts and questions about the policies and put them to our writers. |
| Zoe Williams, Owen Jones, Anne Perkins and Hugh Muir will join us from around 11am-noon (BST) on Friday. You can post your questions and views in the comments below and they will do our best to address as many as possible. We’ll be publishing some of the responses live in this space and hopefully the discussion will continue throughout the afternoon. | Zoe Williams, Owen Jones, Anne Perkins and Hugh Muir will join us from around 11am-noon (BST) on Friday. You can post your questions and views in the comments below and they will do our best to address as many as possible. We’ll be publishing some of the responses live in this space and hopefully the discussion will continue throughout the afternoon. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 10.22am BST | at 10.22am BST |