the snap general election thread

Herzlos

posh*spice wrote: »

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

Do you mean Corbyn or May?

michaels

Arklight wrote: »

Jez we can!

Evil Edna will be in a blue funk today.

And today Corbyn is going to announce that there is a connection between Islamic terrorism, bombing the Middle East because the Americans tell us to, and funnelling billions of petrodollars to Saudi Arabia so that they can fund militant Wahabbist terrorism back here.

Can British people handle the truth? Will the Murdoch press explode? Can The Sun print an entire paper that just says CORBYN IRA repeated on every page.

Interesting times.

I agree, if nasty developing country dictators decide the only way they can hang on to power is to use chemical weapons on their own people it is our duty to look the other way.

Of and of course if they decide to start giving high explosives to Irish Freedom Fighters then that is in no way interfering with us and again we should look the other way and it wouldn't happen.

Spidernick

The Institute of Fiscal Studies is not impressed with either the Tories' or Labour's plans:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115

Mr Johnson, who said that neither main party was "being really honest with the public", commented: "It is likely that the Conservatives would either have to resort to tax or borrowing increases to bail out public services under increasing pressure, or would risk presiding over a decline in the quality of some of those services, including the NHS."


The IFS said Labour's calculations that £49bn a year could be raised from the wealthier and companies "includes some factual mistakes with regard to part of their tax avoidance package, optimistic assumptions and unspecified tax increases".



The proposals could be expected to raise £40bn at most in the short term, and less in the long term.

Filo25

A fair summary of where we stand with regards to the economy from the IFS I think.

IFS say Tories offering 5 more years of austerity and Labour's plans 'would not work'

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is about to publish its analysis of party election manifestos at a briefing in Westminster.

According to the summary sent out under embargo until 9am, their verdict on the Tory and Labour plans is highly critical.

Here is the overall summary.

Neither Conservatives nor Labour are properly spelling out consequences of their policy proposals.

The Conservatives have very few tax or spending commitments in their manifesto. Additional funding pledges for the NHS and schools are just confirming that spending would rise in a way broadly consistent with the March Budget. These plans imply at least another five years of austerity, with the continuation of planned welfare cuts and serious pressures on the public services including on the NHS. They could allow the deficit to shrink over time with no additional tax rises over the coming parliament. But getting to budget balance by the mid-2020s, their stated aim, would likely require more spending cuts or tax rises even beyond the end of the next parliament.

Labour by contrast is proposing very big increases in tax, a bigger increase in spending and, as a result, borrowing continuing around its current share of national income. They would increase spending to its highest sustained level in more than 30 years and taxes to their highest ever peacetime level. Even so the state under Labour would be no bigger than that in many advanced economies. However, their proposed plan for paying for this expansion in state activity would not work. They would not raise as much money as they claim even in the short run, let alone the long run. And there is no way that tens of billions of pounds of tax rises would affect only a small group at the very top as their rhetoric suggests. If they want the advantages of a bigger state they should be willing to candidly set out the consequences – higher taxation affecting broad segments of the population.

michaels

Filo25 wrote: »

A fair summary of where we stand with regards to the economy from the IFS I think.

Sadly the majority of the electorate see the goodies being offered and it doesn't even cross their minds to think about how to pay for them.

The 'share of GDP' argument is interesting because to an extent it depends on what is in the public sector - for example if health care, water, railways or energy are mostly private then the govt share appears smaller than in other countries where they are in public hands even though the actual level of spending on the things both govts do may be very similar.

setmefree2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As Carney said a few months back. The UK is dependent upon the charity of strangers to keep lending the UK the money. There could be a dramatic shift overnight with a corresponding fall in the £. Major challenges for the incoming Marxist Government to contend with. Before they've even started their spending plans.

Pound sell off over night and continuing over the latest poll....however this could just be due to uncertainty - the LP might be predicted to have a "soft"/"No" Brexit (my guess fwiw they will stay in both SM and CU) which I guess would be positive sterling?

Moby

Well we have lots of tories on these threads and they've concentrated for 18 months on Corbyn's weaknessess, unfitness to lead blah, blah and I agree....... but people have been distracted by this and have give May a free run. She is clearly flaky. She is simply not what I thought she was a couple of years ago. I remember agreeing with Generali that she would the next Tory leader. She came across as competent and talented. She has now been exposed by greater scrutiny. She is no leader! a competent cabinet minister perhaps....although her time at the Home Office isn't that good a record actually.

Moby

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you mean Corbyn or May?

Must mean May....who was in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago selling weapons to the House of Saud to kill more Yemenis.

BobQ

Filo25 wrote: »

A fair summary of where we stand with regards to the economy from the IFS I think.

Interesting reading. No doubt politicians will pick what they want from it. One party concealing tax plans and one concealing austerity.

Moby

posh*spice wrote: »

Cried my eyes out. - how can people be so stupid to vote for a terrorist sympathiser who'd bankrupt the country-

The public gets what the public wants...

Don't worry Corbyn has a snowflake in hell's chance of being next PM. It may be a bit closer than most thought though!

The tories have a record for racking up more debt than Labour. Don't believe the gutter press:-


http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/