the snap general election thread

Fella

kinger101 wrote: »

Everyone is biased. Both consciously and unconsciously.

I'd argue that most are but not all. or at the very least you can rise above instinctive bias if you want to.

But let's make this much easier. If I'm so biased quote some of the times I've
defended crap stuff done by either side.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

Yes because the bbc are biased but I am not.

It's not complicated.

In your opinion. .

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

In your opinion. .

Everything I say is my opinion.

I take it you've given up trying to make an argument then?

.string.

Fella wrote: »

Precisely. The Tories were stupid not to cost their manifesto as I already posted earlier on this thread. Dumb over-confidence that's made them vulnerable even against such a half-witted opposition.

Edit: Just re-read what you wrote & realised I misread.

So to answer your question, I think, for the reasons we've seen. In other words the Tories released a manifesto modest enough in their spending intentions they could easily have costed it. Rather than do so, they chose to simply leave it uncosted & give themselves maxiumum maneuverability. I think that was a big mistake as it allows Labour to simply say "you haven't costed anything" then leave the TV stations/newspapers to do their work for them.

Maneuverability - yes that's the key.

The Tories are in a difficult place for whatever their hopes or doubts on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations might be, they have to keep some financial flexibility in hand, "just in case". Normally they would state just that in the manifesto and get some brownie points for being candid but that would signal to the EU negotiators that there was a lack of confidence in the British Government. While all that stuff may be partially posturing, it is an advantage of you lower the expectations of your adversary in a negotiation.

I think that explains a lot and, to be frank, I've no doubt all Parties realise that but can't resist using it to their own po!itical advantage.

posh*spice

alewin wrote: »

You mean the team Corbyn and his 40 or so MP's as opposed to the other 170 current labour MP's who do not want him as their leader.

Also with regards to the abolishing of University tuition fees, Corbyn said it would cost around £10 billion in the first year. It has to be much more than that because whilst we are still in the EU, all the EU students would qualify for free tuition as well, you can't discriminate against them.
So what if an extra 50,000 students attended University next year, although good but image the cost.

And none of that is in the LP costings. Not the £10 billion or the EU students.

posh*spice

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why commit to raising taxes when you don't know the amount you need to raise. So many unknown variables. Providing that the measures introduced are equitable and fair. Then someone on a living wage should be ok with contributing more.

Labours child care policy sounds great. A real vote winner. As not means tested either. 1.3 million children between the ages of 2-4. That's one heck of a commitment in staffing and facilities costs. With the minimum wage set to rise to over £10 under Labour policy. Then of course NHS staff are going to receive increased pay as well. Which will bring the rest of the public sector out on strike. As why should nurses be treated differently to other groups. The interconnected nature of their policies is starting to look seriously questionable.

All set against the expectation that this years budget deficit will be higher than last years.

Strikes. There will be tons of public sector strikes. They know Corbyn will cave to every demand.

wotsthat

Fella wrote: »

No need to carry on with the insults. I have no respect for you whatsoever but I still do you the decency of replying as if you're intelligent enough to argue with. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

I think you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. It's not an insult; it's a diagnosis.

In the last few days you've suggested Labour will manage to bankrupt the country in a year, they'd be 1000 times worse than the Tories, anyone who votes for them is stupid and now you think the nasty BBC are giving poor Theresa a hard time and letting Jeremy off.

Hyperbole much.

Fella

wotsthat wrote: »

In the last few days you've suggested Labour will manage to bankrupt the country in a year, they'd be 1000 times worse than the Tories, anyone who votes for them is stupid and now you think the nasty BBC are giving poor Theresa a hard time and letting Jeremy off.

Hyperbole much.

1. Yes
2. No I haven't, although they'd be much worse
3. No. Thee are perfectly legitimate reasons to vote labour. Not everybody who does is stupid.
4. I don't think they're nasty, just biased. It's a fact.

Ps when you end sentences with the word much you reduce your arguments to twitter level drivel. Much.

LHW99

In the last few days you've suggested Labour will manage to bankrupt the country in a year

One can't be certain on the timing, but going from the record of recent previous Labour governments (Wilson / Callaghan, Blair), they have managed to get there in the end.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

Everything I say is my opinion.

I take it you've given up trying to make an argument then?

Well I don't think they are biased you do that's our opinions and I don't think either of us our going to change our view so that's it really.