the snap general election thread

Arklight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to today's edition of Citizen Smith."


Labours costing document is very widely acknowledged to be sadly lacking from a range of respected sources, including The Institute For Fiscal Studies.

As The Independent says:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-manifesto-conservatives-costings-promises-a7738721.html

Here's what C4's FactCheck says:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-labour-manifesto

So instead of your baloney I say "Power to the people!"
June 8th will soon be here.

As opposed to the Tory one which isn't costed at all.

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Labour's costing document clearly sets out the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for its manifesto.

A document that is utter tosh & depends upon things such as huge amounts of billions raised via increasing corp tax, which isn't guaranteed to raise a penny extra & might actually cost money. There are also huge swathes of spending that aren't accounted for at all such as the cost of re-nationalizing industries.

That document serves precisely two purposes: to fool the gullible & to give desperate pro-Labour activists something they can point to when they say everything is "costed".

Nobody who can do sums actually believes you can spend the hundreds of billions Labour are proposing without increasing debt & deficit and massively increasing income tax across the board.

kabayiri

steampowered wrote: »

"Pennies from heaven"?

The Labour manifesto is costed. Here is Labour's costing document which sets out very simply how Labour's manifesto would be paid for.

Labour have at least been honest about how their manifesto is going to be paid for. Unlike the Conservative or Lib Dem manifesto.
...

I have no problems with projections, including those showing where taxation policy will result in revenue.

There are though 2 issues with this :-

a) history shows that politicians are wildly optimistic when it comes to what revenue changes will bring in. The 50p rate brought in before did not realize the expected revenue either, so why should Labour expect £6.4bn?

b) there is no plan B. What if people take avoidance measures (which they have shown a clear propensity to do). You're left with massive commitments and big holes in the funding gap aren't you?

These are issues with all political parties, it's not just Labour. I just question whether the current time is right to be so ambitious. We face the biggest challenge with the EU at the same time.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Arklight wrote: »

As opposed to the Tory one which isn't costed at all.

But which does not seek to spend as many billions of our money.

Fella

Arklight wrote: »

As opposed to the Tory one which isn't costed at all.

This is true & was a strategic blunder IMO.

However it's quite amusing that their critics who can't complete a whole sentence without talking about Tory cuts, Tory austerity or Tories wrecking public services, are now asking how it'll all be costed.

If the Tories are going to slash spending in all those ways, what exactly is it you want to see costed? Unless the Tories aren't going to do all those things you claim......?

Conrad

Arklight wrote: »

It would work out quite well however, for the 95% of people whose tax wouldn't rise, .

Corbyns your man if you want;


+ Higher taxes for the 95% (he wont be able to collect enough from the 'rich')


+ Higher mortgage payments, perhaps double or treble


+ Contracting enterprise - consumers wont pay for British goods and services made more costly by regulations and taxes


+ Falling pensions - pension funds of course own the corporations Corbyn wants to hammer


+ Rising unemployment - companies will need to pay for rising taxes and regulations and so will lay off staff


+ Rewards for all those that find work a hassle


+ Rewards for the irresponsible - the more kids you want to pop out, the higher your rewards. The fatter you get, the higher your State resources. Etc. This in turn dumbs down children that grow up with these examples.


+ Scotland's close to zero growth thanks to socialist policy ought to be a clue for you

kabayiri

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

But which does not seek to spend as many billions of our money.

A policy of not doing much is actually a policy.

I find it interesting when the political media breathes out a sigh at "lack of policy".

Maybe we have too much "policy" in recent decades.

I am fed up with each party thinking that only they have the answer to education or health, and an arrogance to overturn work done by the previous lot in power.

Filo25

For the first time today I'm starting to consider the option that its possible that the Tories really might mess this election up, something which would have been utterly unthinkable with the way the polling was gong a few short weeks ago.

Yah_Boo_Sux

Oh just look at all the anti-Tory drivel pouring to the surface!

The naked fear shown in such abundance in these hysterical anti-Tory rantings is evidence enough for me that supporters of other than Conservative persuasion now realise full-well that Labour support has reached its maximum crescendo. They know it's all downhill for them from here-on in. And I'm not even a Tory, though I may quite possibly be persuaded this time round.

That's what lack a credible opposition will do.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Corbyns your man if you want;


+ Higher taxes for the 95% (he wont be able to collect enough from the 'rich')


+ Higher mortgage payments, perhaps double or treble


+ Contracting enterprise - consumers wont pay for British goods and services made more costly by regulations and taxes


+ Falling pensions - pension funds of course own the corporations Corbyn wants to hammer


+ Rising unemployment - companies will need to pay for rising taxes and regulations and so will lay off staff


+ Rewards for all those that find work a hassle


+ Rewards for the irresponsible - the more kids you want to pop out, the higher your rewards. The fatter you get, the higher your State resources. Etc. This in turn dumbs down children that grow up with these examples.


+ Scotland's close to zero growth thanks to socialist policy ought to be a clue for you

And you accused the Remainers for fearmongering!

He's proposing increasing corporation tax to below the previous value, and is going to make essentially no difference to the bank balances of higher rate tax payers (actually no change for those earning £80k or less). Will people/corporations leave the country for having to pay an extra £100/month tax on a £4000/month salary? Or what's realistically a 2ppt reduction in corp tax?

How the do you figure it'll double or treble mortage rates?

Or increased costs of business? Or preventing growth in Scotland?