the snap general election thread

Fella

Re the £350mn claim I can completely truthfully say, I never even heard that claim during the campaign. Furthermore I do not know anybody who voted leave (& I know lots of them) who voted leave for that reason or who has ever mentioned it.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying the Leave camp didn't say it (I'm sure they did) or that it didn't affect SOME voters (presumably it did) but I think it's been used by Remainers since the vote as being of significance out of all proportion to any that it ever had in reality.

Almost everybody I know who voted to leave had pretty much this view on the economics of leaving: "we might be worse off, hopefully we won't by too much. There's a chance we'll actually be better off. However even if we're a bit worse off it's a price worth paying to quit". I never met any person who said "I'm voting Leave because the NHS will get an extra £350mn a week".

setmefree2

Filo25 wrote: »

The Tory campaign has been an absolute shambles, they came in with this election already in the bag against an utterly unelectable leader of the opposition, and here we are 1 week out where people are nervously talking about the outside possibility of a hung parliament.

I don't think there will be a hung parliament I think the Tories will get the win and maybe even a moderately increased majority but ultimately it will leave Theresa May looking a very diminished figure.

There have been a spectacular number of own goals scored.

What on earth was the point of the pledge for a free vote on fox hunting its toxic even to most Tory voters, and the people who support it are going to vote Tory anyway, it hardly fits into her narrative about helping the Just About Managing group either.

The manifesto was a study in vague waffle, mixed in with some genuinely unpopular policies for the Tories core voters, and then we had the U-turn which wasn't a U-turn, which has all the benefit of making you look weak while not committing to really doing anything about a genuinely unpopular policy, so all of the cost with no upside.

She's hobbled herself with a Chancellor who looks like a dead man walking which doesn't help much for campaigning on economic issues, and to be honest the attack lines on Labour have been lazy and weak, its almost as though they are still stuck in the same mindset they had at the start of the campaign even though the race has changed fundamentally since then.

For someone who somehow built a reputation for being a competent safe pair of hands, it is phenomenally unimpressive, her leadership would probably be under threat if we weren't faced with the imminent prospect of Brexit negotiations as soon as the election ends.

Indeed.

Also reducing the triple lock to a double lock will probably bring in no money in the next 5 years.

Means testing winter fuel allowance is expensive and will probably bring in little.

kabayiri

setmefree2 wrote: »

The 11 million for this years tuition fees is not fully costed.

The IFS has the LP's plans £20 billion adrift pa.

So that's £30 billion right there.

The LP plans also seem to include large amounts from banks - I haven't discovered what this is - but my best guess is it's something to do with RBS. So they seem to be banking on money from RBS.

I believe they are going to relabel PFI slightly, turning it into "PPI".

Then they will be off to the claims firms, asking for all the money back.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

The strange part is the Labour campaign has been awful. Their manifesto would be ruinously expensive if they even managed to deliver a portion of it, which is about as much as would likely prove possible. They chose to make political capital out of the Manchester atrocity. We've had endless car-crash interviews from virtually every person they've put in front of a microphone, as each in turn has demonstrated that they can't do even basic sums, think on their feet, or sound even remotely convincing.

Yet somehow the Tories have managed to run a campaign that's even less appealing to the public. And their campaign is being run by the usually sure-footed Lynton Crosby.

Perhaps we're witnessing Aboyne:

http://tmoliff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/aboyne-vb.html

And that is what they should be pointing out in detail rather that doing a character assassination job on Corbym.

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

To be fair someone had to make the cuts after 2010 - everyone seems to have forgotten that.

The reason for that link though was to show that May continually gives bland, non committal answers to virtually everything. My theory is she's a 'control freak' who wants latitude to do what she wants and doesn't want to give any hostages to fortune etc. I understand why on one level.....she's very worried about brexit and it's consequences! Her strategy was clear....she saw the polls and the path to a coronation landslide to give her the mandate she needed. That strategy now looks at risk; she'll still win because the opposition is divided etc but her mandate will be a lot weaker than she expected and how will that be used against her by the 27 and what will the consequences of that be for the rest of us?

setmefree2

Conrad wrote: »

Remember how pro-refugee he is.

I worry about this. Not because I'm anti refugee but because so many other Brits are.

Conrad wrote: »

People expecting life to change under Labour will be in for quite a shock.

The public sector will get a pay rise with one hand and a tax rise with the other - because I reiterate - there aren't enough rich guys to pay for the LP promises.

kabayiri

Can I refer to the Reverend Paul Weller for the reality which underpins this election.

"The public gets what the public wants".

We want politics like instant coffee. Just add hot water and stir.

Filo25

setmefree2 wrote: »

I worry about this.




The public sector will get a pay rise with one hand and a tax rise with the other - because I reiterate - there aren't enough rich guys to pay for the LP promises.

Its a major problem for the Labour manifesto, the proposed tax rises won't remotely pay for what they are promising in the medium term, and you sense the current Labour front bench will only want to offer more giveaways in future.

Ideologically the core of that front bench believes that pretty much everything gets better with more government involvement, and you don't sense most of them could care less about the deficit away from some soundbites for electoral purposes.

That isn't even a general comment about Labour, more a reflection of the Corbyn wing of the party.

ukcarper

setmefree2 wrote: »

I meant 100% of the audience cheered the scrapping trident stuff - whereas only 20% of the general population would support such as position - so the BBC audience was clearly biased.

It was Cambridge though - could you get any more Liberal elite ?

Just watched bits again on iplayer definately 50% at most.

alewin

Maybe Corbyn was speaking about himself when he said that the UK's foreign policy is somehow to blame for the terrorist threat in this country. Is that why he supported the IRA's bombing of the UK mainland because of what the British Army was doing in Northern Ireland?

Still can't believe that someone like him can be leader of a main UK political party.