the snap general election thread

StevieJ

Watching her interviewed by Andrew Neil just now, I think she has just lost another couple of % off her support.

Thrugelmir

Arklight wrote: »

Of those who are against, few knew anything about him before he became leader, most of their opinion comes from the relentless anti Corbyn propagnda in the media.

Been around for long enough to have left his mark. Why he has never held a ministerial position is plainly obvious as well. Never treat the electorate with contempt or as being stupid. Ultimately the PM is the face of the UK on the world stage. Cannot picture him in that role.

steampowered

michaels wrote: »

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.

This is taken into account by Labour's costing document. They included a £3.9 billion "Allowance made for additional behavioural change and uncertainty, reducing total
tax take."

If you have yet had the chance to read Labour's costing document, please do so. It is only 2 pages. It is available here: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF. It is worth taking 2 minutes to actually understand what the main policy proposals are before voting, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.

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?

What about every other European country? What about the UK for the past several decades? You can't seriously be suggesting that the UK is fiscally unable to fund universities without charging students £9.25k per year.

CKhalvashi

steampowered wrote: »

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

I thought that, although maybe he's prefer to show us the Tory costings, directly from the party.

I know he can't, but I will be fair to him and give the chance

In other news, the woman who promised she won't panic and backtrack through the EU negotiations due to her strong and stable leadership has panicked and backtracked during her election campaign. This doesn't exactly make me confident in her abilities.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

The Labour party membership is about half a million, and as you point out a lot of them are recent joiners who like Corbyn's extremist approach.

"extremist approach"?

Perhaps you'd care to explain to people why it is so "extremist".

I can't see anything particularly extremist in the Labour manifesto. Perhaps you disagree with proposals to abolish tuition fees or take corporation tax back to where it was a few years ago; but it is hardly "extremist".

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

In other news, the woman who promised she won't panic and backtrack through the EU negotiations due to her strong and stable leadership has panicked and backtracked during her election campaign. This doesn't exactly make me confident in her abilities.

When looking for fault in others it's very easy to do so. When looking at all the candidates. Sometimes it's just a question of who is best at the time. Nor would I use the word panic. At least the issues that really matter are being debated. For too many years we've had slippery politicians that have said one thing. While all along doing something totally the reverse. Or in fact nothing at all. As I have said repeatedly. Tough decisions lie ahead. Cannot go on passing the buck to someone else to foot the bill.

steampowered

Conrad wrote: »

Labours ruinous borrowing will be all the incentive the markets need to increase interest rates, who knows where this could end.

Labour's ruinous borrowing? I don't think your assertion stands up to the facts Conrad.

The current Conservative government has borrowed more in 7 years than the last Labour government did in 13.

And Conservative governments have consistently borrowed more than Labour governments over the past 70 years?

I also point out that Labour have costed their manifesto and put forward taxes/savings to pay for it. The Tories haven't bothered. The Tory manifesto will need to be paid for by increased taxes (which just like in 2010 won't be announced until after the election) or increased debt.

.string.

mark88man wrote: »

I don't accept that argument as most of the leg work will have been done by the civil servants who will still be there, and it is not better to have a party taking you towards a hard brexit, when you believe in a soft brexit.

Can you not see the hackles of Europe rising at the confrontational and hard line being taken, when Labour will be able to calm them down and negotiate towards a softer brexit - still following the will of the people, but not the will of the rightest of the right

And don't give me that b0ll0x about a tough negotiator is a good negotiator - its no good being tough if you just annoy everyone

They, the civil servants, will have worked on general stuff which will be useful but aimed at supporting a certain negotiation strategy. It would not be a quick start for a different team.

I've done some negotiation in my time, although of course nothing close to the scale of Brexit!, but I can tell you that it negotiation can be a tough business and requires huge amount of resilience. That may not be what you meant, possibly you mean agressive or hostile. There I would agree; it's certainly a style of some but I've found negotiation need not be bad tempered, or at least not all the time. Humour is more useful that you might expect, or at least I've found it so..

The most important thing is to know what you want, and how to get there, what things you might relax on and those which are vital and also and especially, an understanding of what matters to your partner's in the negotiation.(Yes I mean Partners, not Adversaries). If you appear to be too accommodating, too eager to reach agreement then you risk loosing ground very quickly and encouraging more obstinacy on the other side.

Like us all here, I don't know the personalities of the people involved but I get the impression that the combination of Davis and May in their respective roles would be a good one --- have not formed an opinion on the other participants.

Regarding the exchange of chest-beating that has taken place I think it is mainly that, although the "no deal if bad deal" statements will have given the EU cause for thought. From what I've seen of the written messages from the EU, there seems to be room for compromise, although a concern is the rigid nature of the EU negotiators due to them being bound by the EU Council

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

When looking for fault in others it's very easy to do so. When looking at all the candidates. Sometimes it's just a question of who is best at the time. Nor would I use the word panic. At least the issues that really matter are being debated. For too many years we've had slippery politicians that have said one thing. While all along doing something totally the reverse. Or in fact nothing at all. As I have said repeatedly. Tough decisions lie ahead. Cannot go on passing the buck to someone else to foot the bill.

Yes, however when you're about to enter a series of very important discussions that could affect the country for many years, the worst thing you can do is give in under pressure.

I've mentioned this before; when Merkel says no, she means no. She doesn't mean 'ask me again in a few days/weeks/months and I'll give in'.

Merkel is 'Strong and stable', May isn't.

.string.

steampowered wrote: »

Labour's ruinous borrowing? I don't think your assertion stands up to the facts Conrad.

The current Conservative government has borrowed more in 7 years than the last Labour government did in 13.

And Conservative governments have consistently borrowed more than Labour governments over the past 70 years?

I also point out that Labour have costed their manifesto and put forward taxes/savings to pay for it. The Tories haven't bothered. The Tory manifesto will need to be paid for by increased taxes (which just like in 2010 won't be announced until after the election) or increased debt.

Of course the borrowing has gone up, it's what happens when you have a budget deficit. It will only come down when either we stop spending so much, the country's tax receipts come up or the Magic Money Tree flowers.