the snap general election thread

Fella

If that document was written on a used piece of bog roll it still wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

The proposed spending is hopelessly optimistic. The tax they hope to raise is even more optimistic & lots of people believe they would raise less tax, not the tens of billions more they claim with their corp tax raises. They claim they'll make billions & billions clamping down on tax avoidance (yawn). They don't count £250 BILLION as spending at all by simply labelling it as "capital investment" & then classing whatever they fancy as capital investment. They make no mention at all of trivial things like how they will pay to nationalise the water industry (valued at about £69 billion.) Or pay for four new bank holidays (maybe £8 billion out of the economy every year but who's counting). They make a laughable £3.9 billion adjustment to allow for behavioural change, when even a baboon can see that if they actually did what they're proposing the impact on the economy would be in the tens if not hundreds of billions.

It's a disgrace of a document, written by shameless liars hoping against hope that people will be fooled by their claim "everything is costed" and not stop to wonder exactly what the Corybn definition of "costed" actually means.

Chrysalis

setmefree2 wrote: »

The LP were running a budget deficit of £50 billion pa as the global crisis hit - making our situation less than ideal for weathering the global storm.

The same thing can happen again - we are currently running a deficit of £50 billion - 2.5% of GDP. The IFS says LP plans will take this to 5% -

Of course 5% of GDP is not bankrupting the country but what happens if there is a recession?

Just to point out if every citizen only spent what they earned (no credit) then we would be in permanent recession, borrowing keeps the economy moving.

All money eventually trickles to the rich, so the only way to keep things moving is to inject new money into the economy which is why we have constant inflation.

Chrysalis

Filo25 wrote: »

Yougov have also updated their model today, no significant changes to seats.

if that actually happens then FPTP voting system hands tories the win.

Because of the scotland situation I cannot see labour winning this election, a hung parliament is realistically the best outcome for them.

Arklight

Fella wrote: »

Labour, their manifesto writers & their supporters really are buying into the "the bigger the lie the more it'll be believed" ethos this time round. Let's write an uncosted manifesto that includes hundreds of billions of pounds of spending, then simply say it's not costed. Lets simply lie when asked about Corbyn & the IRA. Lets pretend only the evil 5% will pay anything. Lets pretend we'll honour Brexit. Let's pretend we're in favour of Trident. & so on & so on.

The strategy is obviously to tell so many blatant lies on so many fronts it simply wears down their opponents. Obviously it's all gobbled up & repeated by the Momentum Trolls, none of whom have to waste time doing anything tiresome like working.

Let's hope the public have enough sense to see through it all.

More introverted, awkward polemic, from a poster who appears unable to move on from the 1970’s.

steampowered

Fella, I take the point that there is uncertainty as to exactly how much some tax rises will raise and exactly how much things will cost. But your criticisms have been exaggerated to a ridiculous level.

Fella wrote: »

They claim they'll make billions & billions clamping down on tax avoidance (yawn).

£6.5bn from a clamp down on tax evasion is not an unreasonable target It is very similar to the £5bn target announced by the Tories back in 2015
.

They don't count £250 BILLION as spending at all by simply labelling it as "capital investment" & then classing whatever they fancy as capital investment.

Capital investment isn't "whatever they fancy". Capital investment is a very well recognised category treated differently to current spending - both in the private and public sectors. £25billion a year on capital investment is not an enormous sum of money, and not much different to what we do at the moment - I suppose the proposal is to fund that with debt, which is exactly what happens at the moment to fund projects like HS2 and Crossrail.

They make no mention at all of trivial things like how they will pay to nationalise the water industry.

I think we have to be realistic here - nobody knows how much that would cost, and it is impossible to put a figure on it in the context of a snap election.

Or pay for four new bank holidays (maybe £8 billion out of the economy every year but who's counting).

That's not government expenditure.

They make a laughable £3.9 billion adjustment to allow for behavioural change

Why is it laughable? £3.9 billion sounds like a perfectly reasonable allowance to make for behavioural change in the context of £44.7bn in tax rises. In fact it is pretty chunky.

even a baboon can see that if they actually did what they're proposing the impact on the economy would be in the tens if not hundreds of billions.

It might be time for you to re-take GCSE Maths class Baboon. The figures in your post do not add to anything anywhere near the hundreds of billions.

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

£6.5bn from a clamp down on tax evasion is not an unreasonable target It is very similar to the £5bn target announced by the Tories back in 2015
.

The Tories target was unreasonable & they have already done some clamping down. Labour pretending they'll raise £6.5bn is a simple lie, if it was that doable the Tories would be doing it already. Or maybe the Labour Govt would have clamped down on it during their 13 years in power?

steampowered wrote: »

Capital investment isn't "whatever they fancy". Capital investment is a very well recognised category

You obviously haven't looked at this indepth to see some of the things Labour are choosing to class as Capital investment. If you think they're talking about £250bn of roads & railways you're wrong. Here's an example from just yesterday: £2.7 billion extra for childcare spending, glibly written off as capital investment. Don't make me laugh.

steampowered wrote: »

I think we have to be realistic here - nobody knows how much that would cost, and it is impossible to put a figure on it in the context of a snap election.

In which case clearly the "realistic" thing to do would be make a sensible estimate - which would be in the tens of billions. Labour have simply chosen to leave it out completely, which suits you very well.

steampowered wrote: »

That's not government expenditure.

Duh, do you not get the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. You can't take £8billion a year out of the economy then adopt a stupid grin & say "that doesn't count, it's not Government expenditure."

steampowered wrote: »

Why is it laughable? £3.9 billion sounds like a perfectly reasonable allowance to make for behavioural change in the context of £44.7bn in tax rises. In fact it is pretty chunky.

So tax changes that are apparently going to to take tens of billions away from corporations are only going to cost £3.9 billion? wow, didn't realise it was that easy. So the money just comes from nowhere yeah? Seriously, a child can see this is nonsense. Business will relocate to more profitable areas, sack people, pay lower dividends, stop wage increases, cost-cut in a million ways. Only a child cannot see this.

steampowered wrote: »

It might be time for you to re-take GCSE Maths class Baboon. The figures in your post do not add to anything anywhere near the hundreds of billions.

I'm fine with sums, but I see how you wouldn't understand that.

kabayiri

Fella wrote: »

...
I'm fine with sums, but I see how you wouldn't understand that.

It's not just sums. It's timing.

The transition phase out of the EU could be turbulent and difficult. We just don't know yet.

To commit to large scale disruption at this point shows a lack of awareness on how to introduce taxation changes.

masterwilde

well all you torie voters that love the banks, what happens if she walks away without the deal?

at least labour are saying they will negotiate for it, however the cost implication is there? but what is the percentage cost v the revenue that banking passport create? what timeframe is there for the government to get the funds back through the banks?

tories are a sham, that havent costed anything, will happily walk away without any deal on Europe. They are destroying public services an yet people are eating them up... its laughable

masterwilde

tories are ready to sell of all the NHS property, ready and waiting, they just need voting in, then they will sell the land and buildings to developers and they will rent it back to the NHS.

the Tories are seriously destroying public services.

Conrad

These TV debate are a waste of space for right of centre politicians because of inbuilt audience applause bias. In future I hope Tories and UKIP ignore them.