the snap general election thread

GreatApe

Chrysalis wrote: »

Well first off, why are you making stuff up? yes its a serious question.

Because labour did say where the money comes from, it comes from tax increases.

However the tories did not say how their tax cuts are funded, yes tax cuts does = spending.

So the question is, why are you making stuff up?

When the bbc asked may how her manifesto was budgeted, after lots of evading the question she muttered "I will move money around". oooooookay.

Also I dont know what world you live in but its perfectly normal practice for consumers to borrow, business to borrow and most definitely for governments to borrow. Even large companies like BT borrow money as it makes economical sense with the low interest rates.

If no one borrowed we would be in a permanent recession, the 2009 recession was primarily caused by credit lines been shut. Capitalism cannot survive without borrowing.

These companies that you said would never pay up were paying up in the 2000s, corbyn was proposing a lower rate of corp tax then we have had for the past 2 decades.

The problem what you dont realise is if the government keeps caving in to wealthy individuals and large corporations the end result is inevitable, a 1% tax rate as these guys are never happy, tax always has to be lower than what it is.

One thing trump did in america that was clever was he told companies that moved out of america they would be slapped with a 35% import tax, governments do have the power to force companies to change their way of thinking, but it does need "balls" to carry it out. So all that would need to be done is to make a change to law to make it "unprofitable" for companies to avoid paying tax.

A government can afford more than someone like amazon, but often is governments simply dont try hard enough as they tend to see tax evasion as a lower crime than things like benefit fraud, so more effort always gets put into the latter.

The UK isn't particularly low tax or low government spending

We sit roughly on the middle of the USA(35% GDP) and France (55% GDP) and are roughly on oar with the Germans

What's more France is flattered by things like national ownership of EDF.
So toy couldn't make the argument that the UK government should increase its share of the economy by 10% to be more like France and that would lead to more doctors or nurses or etc. The way France is able to have a higher % is that it owns necessities like electricity and gas grids. There would be no fundamental increase in productivity if the state owned the utilities (but the % of the economy as the state would rise)


Also I think the Tories have done most the heavy lifting over the last 7 years. The next 7 years would see the proceeds of growth go to higher wages more state more spending and lower taxes rather than concentrating primarily on reducing the unsustainable deficit

Also right now we have zero unemployment (check the unemployment figure for those out of work for more than 6months its about 1%) there is no slack for the state to go on a spending spree. Government should spend more in recessions but not during the boom phase which we have started to go into

Moby

Later today 1200 soldiers in pretty red tunics and furry hats will be parading on Horseguards – and the government couldn’t spare half-a-dozen from Tuesday last onwards to set up a command and information co-ordination centre!! A shocking state of affairs and a complete absence of leadership!

CKhalvashi

GreatApe wrote: »

The UK isn't particularly low tax or low government spending

We sit roughly on the middle of the USA(35% GDP) and France (55% GDP) and are roughly on oar with the Germans

What's more France is flattered by things like national ownership of EDF.
So toy couldn't make the argument that the UK government should increase its share of the economy by 10% to be more like France and that would lead to more doctors or nurses or etc. The way France is able to have a higher % is that it owns necessities like electricity and gas grids. There would be no fundamental increase in productivity if the state owned the utilities (but the % of the economy as the state would rise)


Also I think the Tories have done most the heavy lifting over the last 7 years. The next 7 years would see the proceeds of growth go to higher wages more state more spending and lower taxes rather than concentrating primarily on reducing the unsustainable deficit

Also right now we have zero unemployment (check the unemployment figure for those out of work for more than 6months its about 1%) there is no slack for the state to go on a spending spree. Government should spend more in recessions but not during the boom phase which we have started to go into

So, you admit that the Thatcher government shouldn't have sold the power companies, water companies etc, then you say that they're the best government we could have.

The next 7 years is likely to be a case of reduced inward investment, reduced outward investment and lack of prosperity.

I'm going to be putting a 5 year business plan together as soon as I've got through the pile(s ) of paperwork that's been accumulating on my desk for the last 8 weeks and it's going to depend on feedback from clients as to where we go from here. An email to all clients was prepared in April and will be circulated on Monday.

A UK-based structure is a possibility, but no longer a guarantee, and I'm not committing to anything at this stage. I know other businesses in this position, most are exporting within the single market and most are holding off investment until DExEU have announced what they're doing.

I had it on good authority (although I'm not revealing the source of this information) in the week that an EEA agreement is what the British government will ask for, and this will keep me happy, whilst allowing everyone more time to get everything dealt with. This is my main concern, and I'm expecting it to be completed with minimal disruption to the country.

hallmark

claims of a cover-up about the real death toll went viral on social media on Friday.

Tension among residents was ramped up by suggestions that the Government had gagged the media in an attempt to manage public anger about the inferno.

The claims - all of them completely false - were spread by far-left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn including pop stars and socialist blogs.

They could now be examined by MPs as part of an ongoing parliamentary inquiry into “fake news”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/corbyn-supporters-spread-fake-news-grenfell-house-death-toll/

More proof of Corbyn & his supporters doing everything they can to stoke up the situation. What lovely people they are.

hallmark

And more:

Corbynista ultra and veteran left-wing activist Tina Buckley is on the ground in Kensington tonight riling up protesters. Buckley was spotted outside Kensington Town Hall leading chants as the building was stormed by protesters.

https://order-order.com/2017/06/16/corbynista-ultras-involved-in-storming-of-kensington-council-hq/

gfplux

i did find it strange that the media were tip toeing around the possible numbers of fatalitys.
Reporters on the ground could surely have reported the number of missing. These numbers are now beginning to circulate.

chucknorris

hallmark wrote: »

claims of a cover-up about the real death toll went viral on social media on Friday.

Tension among residents was ramped up by suggestions that the Government had gagged the media in an attempt to manage public anger about the inferno.

The claims - all of them completely false - were spread by far-left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn including pop stars and socialist blogs.

They could now be examined by MPs as part of an ongoing parliamentary inquiry into “fake news”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/corbyn-supporters-spread-fake-news-grenfell-house-death-toll/

More proof of Corbyn & his supporters doing everything they can to stoke up the situation. What lovely people they are.

A few days ago I would have dismissed your post as nonsense, but I have recently become quite wary of Corbyn, I suspect something quite sinister is happening.

hallmark

gfplux wrote: »

i did find it strange that the media were tip toeing around the possible numbers of fatalitys.
Reporters on the ground could surely have reported the number of missing. These numbers are now beginning to circulate.

That's not how it works. The Metropolitan police release the official figures & news outlets simply relay them.

hallmark

chucknorris wrote: »

A few days ago I would have dismissed your post as nonsense, but I have recently become quite wary of Corbyn, I suspect something quite sinister is happening.

Corbyn is an extremist & he is backed by Momentum which is riddled with truly nasty individuals & speclalizes in nasty tricks. You only have to look at the treatment of his own MPs who dared to oppose him to see how low these people are.

Be under no illusions, if they can instigate open rioting on the streets & masquerade it as some kind of legitimate protest over this latest tragedy they will do so. Their aim is to topple the Govt.

The sooner this starts being reported for what it is the better.

hallmark

For example:

Jeremy Corbyn has refused to distance himself from the left-wing Momentum campaign group despite claims from Labour women MPs that they are being targeted by its supporters with online and offline abuse.

The Labour leader came under pressure at a meeting of the Women’s Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) as a string of MPs, some on the edge of tears, gave accounts of the attacks they had suffered in recent months

Phillips asked Corbyn if he felt he should now distance himself from Momentum, to which he replied: “No.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-womens-plp-momentum-online-abuse-metro-mayor-selections-luciana-berger-jess-phillips_uk_58ad5d82e4b0d0a6ef465753