the snap general election thread

kabayiri

westernpromise wrote: »

...
Labour's plans thus can't be funded by income or corporation taxes. So they'd have to levy them on something else. The inescapable logic is that they'll have to start expropriating people.

But, but....they've been "fully costed".

I do think Labour will address the inequality between North and South.

(by making the South poorer...)

CKhalvashi

setmefree2 wrote: »

I'm 55 - if the LP come after my salary in a big way - I will just retire.

Which will presumably leave you as a taxpayer, with another taxpayer filtered right down to intern level below you.

You will therefore be helping to pay for the LP plans.

I really don't think you thought that one through before posting

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

What is your evidence that Corbyn supported the IRA bombing of the UK mainland?

The facts that he refused to condemn it, invited spokesmen for the perpetrators to the HoC just after they'd killed fellow MPs, voted against the Anglo-~Irish Agreement, observed a minute's silence for terrorists killed on their way to murder soldiers and policemen, never met or shared a platform with the UVF, and has as his shadow chancellor a man who said that we should be

honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.

and has as his shadow home secretary a woman who has said that she wanted the IRA to defeat the British state, are all pretty clear pointers to all those who aren't hard of thinking.

This is why it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour supporters are morally incompetent.

Fella

Of course there is always the possibility that we've spent 90 pages discussing this for nothing because when it comes to next Thursday The Sun will simply tell people to vote Tory & they will.

IveSeenTheLight

setmefree2 wrote: »

It's also possible that the Tories think that this a worthwhile fight - worth getting a reduced number of seats for - if they do manage to get any sort of majority they will have a mandate to increase NI on the self employed, charge for social care, get rid of the triple lock....not much point in having a majority of 100 if you can't do any of the above because it wasn't in the manifesto...

This is crucial for me.
A huge reason for the manifesto was to push through policy they were already targeted for going against the manifesto.

They believed their poll lead and the state of the opposition was enough smoke and mirrors to deflect and push through their policy changes.

The problem is the electorate is a bit smarter than she anticipated and is seeing through the smoke and mirrors

masterwilde

corporation tax was 56 billion last year but with dates moved lets call it a conservative 45 billion. add 7% on that with labour and you get a rise in tax of 3.15 billion

westernpromise

steampowered wrote: »

Labour projected that their income tax increase would raise £6.4 billion, not £38 billion. Details here: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF.

Quite. The point is that even if you took every penny off your hate target, and even then you still haven't got enough money, a responsible attitude is to reduce your spending and an irresponsible one is to borrow and dump the resulting debt onto future generations who don't get to vote.

Fella

Moby wrote: »

What is your evidence that Corbyn supported the IRA bombing of the UK mainland?

Jeremy Corbyn:

Following the Grand Hotel bombing, a far-Left magazine on whose editorial board Corbyn served as general secretary reiterated its backing for the Irish republican movement, adding: ‘Let our “Iron Lady” know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.’

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/labour-party-knew-corbyn-made-leader-now-country-knows/




John McDonnell:

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has apologised “from the bottom of my heart” for suggesting in 2003 that the IRA should be honoured for the bombings which brought the British government “to the negotiating table” during the Northern Ireland peace process.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-apologises-for-ira-comment-labour



Dianne Abbott:

The Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has refused to say she "regrets" calling for the IRA to defeat the British state.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-ira-regret-jeremy-corbyn-defeat-british-state-a7759926.html

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

The facts that he refused to condemn it, invited spokesmen for the perpetrators to the HoC just after they'd killed fellow MPs, voted against the Anglo-~Irish Agreement, observed a minute's silence for terrorists killed on their way to murder soldiers and policemen, never met or shared a platform with the UVF, and has as his shadow chancellor a man who said that we should be

honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.

and has as his shadow home secretary a woman who has said that she wanted the IRA to defeat the British state, are all pretty clear pointers to all those who aren't hard of thinking.

This is why it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour supporters are morally incompetent.

So as i said there is no evidence that he supported the IRA bombing campaign;Are the pictures of the Queen talking to McGuiness and of Boris Johnston posing for a thumbs up picture with him as well evidence that they supported IRA bombing? By the way Corbyn has met members of the Ulster paramilitaries and he said the minutes silence was for all victims of violence. What's morally incompetent in fact morally reprehensible is that you list incidents which you have skewed in a particular way gleaned from the right wing gutter rags as evidence that Corbyn agreed with the IRA bombing campaign. Even knowing your hatred of anyone left of centre, that's a pretty big stretch! The conclusion that I find hard to avoid is that there are some people who will do anything to stop Corbyn including accuse him of treason....a desperate, shameful smear!

westernpromise

Fella wrote: »

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".

There were two problems with the £350 million claim as I see it, one trivial and one crucial.

The trivial one was that £350 million is our gross not net payment, so arguably they should have said £200 million not £350 million. Arguably though the £350 million was justifiable because you'd choose where to spend the whole, which might indeed be on the NHS.

The crucial one is that to claim any number could be spent on anything was actually nonsensical because neither Leave nor Remain was in power. Hence there was no way that post a Leave vote the £200 million was going to be spent on anything. Any such claim was stupid regardless of the ££ attached to it. It would be just as likely to be used simply to pay down the deficit, for example.

I am not sure how much difference it made in the end, because as far as I can tell, most people who voted Leave did so because of

• sovereignty
• the absence of democracy in the EU (what difference has any MEP ever made and why is there no Opposition?)
• a wish to escape the dead hand of European socialism, or
• them immigrants comin' over 'ere.

- or some combination thereof.

I didn't vote because I thought both sides' arguments were rubbish, but I never heard anyone say the £350 million had swayed them.