the snap general election thread

Filo25

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (-1)
LAB: 28% (-)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
UKIP: 8% (+1)

(via ICM)

PixelPound

In 2015 the "vote labour get SNP" mantra did a swing enough to ensure tory victory. Watching Marr this morning, Tim Farron had a clever ploy - admit its going to be a tory majority. If it looks like a landslide, will many who voted Tory for fear of the prospect of a Labour/SNP coalition not bother, and those who were dismayed at the Brexit vote but don't vote in GE's decide to this time?

The latest polls seem to now be "adjusted" to show less of a landslide, is it them edging bets because they don't want to be proved wrong again, or an actual swing away from the landslide?

Filo25

No matter how bad the Labour shadow cabinet is at present, its always good to get a reminder that Diane Abbott is in a league of her own.

Nick Ferrari: So how much would 10,000 police officers cost?

Diane Abbott: Well, erm... if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four-year period, we believe it'll be about £300,000.

Nick Ferrari: £300,000 for 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?

Diane Abbott: Haha, no. I mean, sorry...

Nick Ferrari: How much will they cost?

Diane Abbott: They will cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million.

Nick Ferrari: About £80million? How do you get to that figure?

Diane Abbott: We get to that figure because we anticipate recruiting 25,000 extra police officers a year at least, over a period of four years and we're looking at both what average police wages are generally, but also specifically police wages in London.

Nick Ferrari: And this will be funded by the reversing in some instances I think the cuts to Capital Gains Tax, but I'm right in saying that since Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the party, that money has also been promised to reverse spending cuts in education, spending cuts in arts, spending cuts in sports. The Conservatives will say you've spent this money already Diane Abbott.

Diane Abbott: Well, the Conservatives would say that. We've not promised the money to any area. We've just pointed out that the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion and there are better ways of spending that money. But as we roll out our manifesto process, we are specifically saying how we will fund specific proposals and this morning I'm saying to you that we will fund the 10,000 extra police officers by using some, not all, but just some of the over £2billion.

Nick Ferrari: The £80million is the figure we used.

Diane Abbott: Yeah.

Nick Ferrari: But I don't understand., if you divide 80million by 10,000, you get 8,000. Is that what you're going to pay these policemen and women?

Diane Abbott: No, we're talking about, erm, a process over four years.

Nick Ferrari: I don't understand, what is he or she getting? 80million divided by 10,000 equals 8,000. What are these police officers going to be paid?

Diane Abbott: We will be paying them the average...

Nick Ferrari: Has this been thought through?

Diane Abbott: Of course it's been thought through.

Nick Ferrari: Where are the figures?

Diane Abbott: The figures are that the additional costs in year one when we anticipate recruiting about 250,000 policemen will be £64.3million.

Nick Ferrari: 250,000 policemen?

Diane Abbott: And women.

Nick Ferrari: So you're getting more than 10,000? You're recruiting 250,000?

Diane Abbott: No, we are recruiting 2,000 and perhaps 250.

Nick Ferrari: So where did 250,000 come from?

Diane Abbott: I think you said that, not me.

Nick Ferrari: No, no, I can assure you you said that figure because I wrote it down.

Diane Abbott: What I'm saying about the costs is in year one, obviously, we're getting ready to recruit. But in year two, the cost will be £64.3million. In year three, the cost will be a £139.1million, year four, the cost will be £217million and year five, the cost will be £298million. And that can be amply covered by reversing the cuts to Capital Gains Tax.

WengerIn

Maybe the Queen or something can bring forward the election. There must be a piece of human rights legislation that's being breached in this process of the Labour front bench utterly humiliating themselves.

On a more serious note, I do wonder if we're going to have shy Labour this time. I mean seriously, would you admit to a stranger that you plan to vote for this shower?

IveSeenTheLight

WengerIn wrote: »

Maybe the Queen or something can bring forward the election. There must be a piece of human rights legislation that's being breached in this process of the Labour front bench utterly humiliating themselves.

On a more serious note, I do wonder if we're going to have shy Labour this time. I mean seriously, would you admit to a stranger that you plan to vote for this shower?

Its true, Labour do not appear to be providing a strong opposition at the moment.

My confidence in Conservatives is also lower.
I just can't trust Theresa May to act in the countries best interests.
I had far more confidence with David Cameron and he should have stayed on to deliver what the electorate voted for.

Its interesting to hear Nick Cleggs comments on Theresa May today.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/theresa-may-eu-brexit-nick-clegg

I think the Conservatives will still win due to a lack of credible opposition, that said, I do hope that the Conservatives fail to get as much seats as currently and its is a clear mandate that the country does not believe in TM and she stands down.
We'd hopefully then get a better leader of our government.

westernpromise

the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion

Perhaps I'm being thick, but how can cuts in tax cost the payer of tax anything?

economic

westernpromise wrote: »

<i> the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion</i>

Perhaps I'm being thick, but how can cuts in tax cost the payer of tax anything?

its not that you are thick. its that the media think you are thick.

IveSeenTheLight

westernpromise wrote: »

<i> the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion</i>

Perhaps I'm being thick, but how can cuts in tax cost the payer of tax anything?

As I understand it, its reversing the cuts.

In the 2016 Budget former Conservative chancellor George Osborne set out plans to cut the rate of CGT paid by higher rate taxpayers from 28% to 20%, and the rate paid by basic rate taxpayers from 18% to 10%

Reversing these proposed cuts, effectively means (if volumes remain the same) that the sellers need to pay more in tax and overall revenue from the taxpayer increases

westernpromise

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As I understand it, its reversing the cuts.



Reversing these proposed cuts, effectively means (if volumes remain the same) that the sellers need to pay more in tax and overall revenue from the taxpayer increases

But that's not what she said. She said that reducing tax would cost the taxpayer - "the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion".

How can the taxpayer paying less tax mean the taxpayer pays more tax?

IveSeenTheLight

westernpromise wrote: »

But that's not what she said. She said that reducing tax would cost the taxpayer - "the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion".

How can the taxpayer paying less tax mean the taxpayer pays more tax?

I'm happy to understand what she meant and am not going to be concerned over a semantic gaffe.

Yes, she messed up the points, but essentially her message was that they intend to reverse the proposed cuts and utilise the revenue elsewhere.