the snap general election thread

michaels

steampowered wrote: »

The tuition fee proposal is fully costed. Have a look at http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017, and click the "funding Britain" link.

That very simply sets out the cost of what Labour is proposing - including how much abolishing tuition fees would cost - and how it will be paid for.

Pretty much every other European country - including Scotland - manages to do without tuition fees. There is no reason why England has to be any different - we managed to do without tuition fees for decades. Charging kids £9.3k a year to go to university is a political choice, not a necessity.

That is a very different approach to the Tories, who have not bothered to cost the 60 spending commitments in their manifesto.

We simply don't know whether the Conservative manifesto commitments will be paid for by additional tax rises, additional debt or by further spending cuts to organisations like the NHS. I reckon that Conservative VAT increases (the Tories said they had no plans to raise VAT during the last election but then did so in their last budget) and national insurance rises (the Tories tried to do that in their last budget but U-turned) are likely.

I can not understand why people think that increasing a tax rate by x% will increase the take by x% - Of course it won't, people will respond, either by 'avoiding' or simply by working less. More tax on employment makes working less valuable so all things being equal people will work less. Hardly rocket science. Same with corporation tax. There is loads of academic research that backs up this 'laffer curve' but I guess it is not worth beleiving experts.

Scotland are running an unsustainable deficit with about £15bn pa transferred from the rUK. I don't think this is a trick the rUK can duplicate unless you can identify a source for the equivalent £150bn that the rUK would need. Perhaps the EU would like to start making contributions instead of demanding payments?

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's a scary thought.
Although my moral compass prohibits me from ever voting Tory again after their lurch to the extreme-right, I do want them to fully own the Brexit debacle about to come our way.

The fact you wanted to Remain & dislike the Tories is your perogative & fair enough.

But why would you post something as plain daft as "their lurch to the extreme right" at the very time they launch the most left-wing set of policies anybody can remember a Tory Govt proposing?

michaels

mayonnaise wrote: »

And our strong and stable leader performs another U-Turn... :rotfl:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-dementia-tax-u-turn-pensioners-labour-corbyn-general-election-conservative-tory-poll-a7749001.html

I wonder if she's starting to regret calling this election.

So the Tories refining their policy because it was not popular enough is a u-turn.

Whereas Labour suddenly announcing they have found another £10bn down the back of the sofa to bribe all students with £10,000 next year by bringing forward the abolition of student fees is an example of consistency from JC.

Time for a face-palm smiley?

I do so hate this post truth post experts world - feels much more like Argentina than the UK. Even Milliband had to pretend to have a set of policies that added up rather than just promising everything to everyone.

Some interesting election strategy stuff though - Lyndon Crosby thought he could follow the Trump lead and capture the UK equivalent of 'rust belt Trump democrats' but it has back fired because Labour are led by 'Bernie Saunders' radical Venezuela left rather than a Hilary Clinton style social democrat.

Mortgagefreeman

mayonnaise wrote: »

I wonder if she's starting to regret calling this election.

I doubt it. She's still on course for a stonking majority.

Happy days.

mayonnaise

michaels wrote: »

So the Tories refining their policy because it was not popular enough is a u-turn.

Whereas Labour suddenly announcing they have found another £10bn down the back of the sofa to bribe all students with £10,000 next year by bringing forward the abolition of student fees is an example of consistency from JC.

Time for a face-palm smiley?

Tories are doing U-turns and Labour is inconsistent? Fine, we agree then.
Don't assume that anyone being critical of the Tories is pro-Labour.
Yes, time for a face-palm smiley indeed.

Fella

The problem (IMO) with the Tory manifesto is that it doesn't include anything to motivate people to go & vote for them. Instead they are relying on people voting Tory purely so they don't get Corbyn, a valid line of logic but a pretty negative & uninspiring message. It's hard to see why any wavering pensioner would rush out & vote Tory because of anything in the manifesto. Or any of the millions of people who were expecting to inherit a house at some point.

They're also way overdoing the "Strong & Stable leadership" line, so much so that they're starting to sound like a foolish parody of themselves. Two weeks ago nobody was in much doubt that May was strong & stable compared to Corbyn. They didn't need to keep going on about it. By endlessly repeating that one phrase it doesn't convince anybody who didn't already believe it, but it does start to make people think "is that all they've got to say".

mrginge

Fella wrote: »

The problem (IMO) with the Tory manifesto is that it doesn't include anything to motivate people to go & vote for them. Instead they are relying on people voting Tory purely so they don't get Corbyn, a valid line of logic but a pretty negative & uninspiring message. It's hard to see why any wavering pensioner would rush out & vote Tory because of anything in the manifesto. Or any of the millions of people who were expecting to inherit a house at some point.

They're also way overdoing the "Strong & Stable leadership" line, so much so that they're starting to sound like a foolish parody of themselves. Two weeks ago nobody was in much doubt that May was strong & stable compared to Corbyn. They didn't need to keep going on about it. By endlessly repeating that one phrase it doesn't convince anybody who didn't already believe it, but it does start to make people think "is that all they've got to say".

Well let's face it, the economy is pretty weak and will come under lots of pressure in the next five years. Tax rates and public spending are cut to the bone already.

There ain't a lot that can be given away unless you've got a magic money tree.

IveSeenTheLight

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

I doubt it. She's still on course for a stonking majority.

Happy days.

I thought I posted this earlier, but maybe not.

Conservatives' shrinking poll lead should 'focus minds'



Both YouGov and Survation polls show the gap narrowing to single digits.

I'm not one to believe too much in polls, but it may still be an indication on the reaction to the manifestos being released.

The Conservative smoke and mirrors , hide behind the Brexit slogan of being strong and stable is not masking the impact the manifesto policies will make

Filo25

Westminster VI

CON: 47% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 2% (-1)

(via @ICMResearch / 19-21 May)

ICM weights for past turnout more aggressively than some other pollsters I believe.

Fella

mrginge wrote: »

Well let's face it, the economy is pretty weak and will come under lots of pressure in the next five years. Tax rates and public spending are cut to the bone already.

There ain't a lot that can be given away unless you've got a magic money tree.

I agree the economy is weak (although I don't think public spending is cut to the bone, it's just politically unviable to cut it much more). I'm just surprised they didn't add at least a bit of sugar to go with the medicine they're proposing. The Labour manifesto, albeit a piece of absolute fantasy, has given it's canvassers & activists a whole range of apparent giveaways they can try to bribe people with. Any Tory trying to counter those is left with "yes but with us you get strong & stable leadership" & the hope that whoever they're talking to understands maths.