the snap general election thread

CKhalvashi

Fella wrote: »

I think that thankfully most people on here have been too decent to try to use events this week to make any political points for or against either party.

Many of us could have done, so easily. It's not fair on those involved in the attack to do so though.

On Tuesday night after attending a church memorial service I went out with (and happily bought a drink for) campaigners from all parties. In times like this it's much more important to put aside political differences and focus on treating the situation with respect.

Filo25

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (-5)
LAB: 34% (+5)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-2)
GRN: 4% (-)

(via @TNS_UK / 18 - 22 May)

Fieldwork conducted before Manchester terror attack.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

With respect their costings don't deserve the time of day. They've deliberately claimed they'll raise tens of billions from tax increases open to widely different interpretation of what they'll generate & that may well actually raise less revenue & other stuff that is plucked out of the air (the usual stuff like "clamping down on tax avoiders"). Other things aren't costed at all.

Let's be serious for a moment. Unless you're a backwards moron (& I don't believe you personally are btw) you don't NEED to scrutinize the figures. Labour are proposing spending hundreds of billions of pounds & claiming it'll have no impact except on the evil richest 5%. A child can see that is total fantasy. It deserves to be laughed at & dismissed like the utter nonsense it is.

If they want to spend hundreds of billions & actually have it costed they'd need a large income tax raise across the board and a ton of extra borrowing. Anybody who tries to tell you different is a liar hoping you're a gullible idiot.

Say you are right. Do the other parties say anything different?

The Tory one claims it will fund breakfast at schools and then the experts point out that costed proposal does not include the extra staff time


https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/24/theresa-may-free-school-breakfasts-undercosted-tory-manifesto

It also makes the statement that " We will reduce loneliness and promote technological solutions to prolong independent living, and invest in dementia research. " but where is this dementia research costed? How they plan to reduce elderly loneliness through technology is not even explained let alone costed.

They all do it but saying that Corbyn is pedalling financial fiction is not an excuse for making their own uncosted proposals is it?

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

They all do it but saying that Corbyn is pedalling financial fiction is not an excuse for making their own uncosted proposals is it?

Anyone in the Labour party seriously thought through the impact of a minimum wage of £10 per hour by 2020?

That's a 33.33% increase in 3 years, plus related employers national insurance and pension contributions as well.

Filo25

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

Fieldwork after the terror attack, very surprised by those figures, getting into hung parliament territory here.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

That's simply you fundamentally not comprehending just how bad a state Labour left the finances in in 2010.

The rest of your argument is basically a repeat of the idea that you can "spend your way out of debt" which was precisely the kind of attitude that put our finances in this state during Labour's last time in charge.

(Of course you can always blame it on the Global Financial Crash, what a convenient crash that was).

Some of the debt was due to the GFC, but some was due to the Labour Government. You can call it incompetence but in reality it was what those who elected them wanted. It reflected the way many people managed their own finances in the 1990s. That is large mortgages, personal loans beyond our means and credit card debt. But we still wanted better public services. Government allowed us to do this, and borrowed to deliver the public services and infrastructure we wanted (look at the Millennium Dome fiasco).

While individuals may say they lived within their means and its all Labour's fault, most people went along with it. I cannot recall any Conservative spokesman prior to 2008 asking for more regulation, more restrictions on lending, or complaining about improvements to schools and health services. After 2008 of course the objections emerged.

If you are correct (I do not pretend to have the expertise to know), then lets not pretend its still all due to Labour. Labour has been out of power for 7 years. The Conservatives have not had the bottle to undertaken the radical austerity I infer you want. They have taken a pragmatic approach and we continue not to solve the problem. If they win the large majority as appears, five years from now they will have no excuses and neither will those who continue to run their lives based on debt corporate or personal.

Conrad

mayonnaise wrote: »

I had some free time to go digging.

04/05/2010:


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=32463819&postcount=115

Mayo, would you mind digging out an old thread of mine on Drone use and how they inculcate terrorism? It was about three years ago posted in Discussion Time. I want to revive it.

If not no worries.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

I cannot recall any Conservative spokesman prior to 2008 asking for more regulation, more restrictions on lending, or complaining about improvements to schools and health services. After 2008 of course the objections emerged.

With hindsight the flaw's in Brown's strategy was all too apparent. The cosy nature (and influence) relationship with the bankers from RBS and HBOS. Nor forget that Blair and Brown fell out over Brown's welfare state plans as early as 2005. Even Blair later admitted that he considered them unaffordable in the longer term yet failed to bring the matter in the public spotlight.

Considering that Northern Rock failed at the end of August 2007, yet was only nationalised in February 2008. Once the Treasury had finally got to the bottom of the banks finances. Shows how complex a simple mortgage lending business had become. You cannot throw mud at an opposition party in such circumstances.

Brown saved the banking system , but not his reputation. What's going to be the final bill to the taxpayer for RBS? Going to run into billions of pounds.

The Conservatives have not had the bottle to undertaken the radical austerity I infer you want.

Change takes time. I would consider the reduction in annual deficit from 2010 to 2017 a success. Reducing headcount costs money for example. Sizable payoffs. So can take some years to see measurable improvement.

posh*spice

Arklight wrote: »

The right wingers on this thread seem genuinely rattled.


Good. Very good.

Scared. Scared. Scared.

And heart broken.

That in a week like this - the country is going to vote in a terrorist supporter. Tragic.

And what a waste - the effort to get the budget deficit down....gone.

Sad times if the polls are to be believed.

Thrugelmir

posh*spice wrote: »

Sad times if the polls are to be believed.

And we all know how accurate they are. (With people being less than truthful).

Corbyn is a man of principles. Consequently bound to say something controversial yet.