the snap general election thread

Arklight

The Tory press is not responding well to May's manifesto. Most worrying for her, Paul Dacre is not very impressed and there's a somewhat frosty reception from the Daily Mail. As cautious as the above the line copy is, the comments are blimming furious.


They're all enraged by the new death tax for various reasons. I expect there will be a fair bit of frantic U turning over this now, as May doesn't displease Paul Dacre.


The Murdoch press is far less restrained and there is a small rebellion going on in the Telegraph.


She now has the choice of ploughing on with policies that baby boomers and mainstream media hate - something that doesn't exactly come naturally to conservative politicians, or face some humiliating politicking.


How exciting!

michaels

I'm hoping she holds her nerve and does the right thing. I think a majority of 50 is more healthy than 100+ I think ending the triple lock is long overdue and having the ability to tax those avoiding NI by claiming to be self employed (no doubt including lots of journos) is long overdue. Plus a smaller majority stops them from doing silly things like reinstating fox-hunting (and normally reintroducing grammar schools although unfortunately this is in the manifesto).

Arklight

The boomers are incandescent about Theresa May's social care policies. The Daily Mail comments are in meltdown.


Frankly, I'm not surprised. It appears that unless you are lucky enough to die before you go into care then you'll be forced to take out a loan for the balance of your housing equity minus £100k which you may keep. When that has gone you get "free" care but are liable for the interest on your loan, which will wipe out your £100k in a few years unless you do the decent thing and pop your clogs.


This is not how you manage social care. I am surprised at how callous it is actually.

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

I'm hoping she holds her nerve and does the right thing. I think a majority of 50 is more healthy than 100+ I think ending the triple lock is long overdue and having the ability to tax those avoiding NI by claiming to be self employed (no doubt including lots of journos) is long overdue. Plus a smaller majority stops them from doing silly things like reinstating fox-hunting (and normally reintroducing grammar schools although unfortunately this is in the manifesto).

Once some of Corbyns' hard of thinking shadow cabinet roadies get in front of the cameras a bit more, it won't matter what was in the Tory manifesto.

This clip is Rebecca Long-Bailey, doing her level best to prove that Northerners really are as thick as they sound!

https://youtu.be/aAo0odHz7KY

Dear Jeremy, here's a tip. If you launch an ambitious manifesto, then make sure you don't have it discussed on telly by intellectual lightweights!

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Governments raise money through tax. There's no magic money tree that pays Government fees.

Your personal experience is that you benefit I suspect . Whether the total amount spent to fund the scheme provides value for money is another matter. In the UK. Where the National Audit Office reports independently to Westminster on such matters. The full reports are publicly available. There's not the same transparency level of transparency and accountability within Brussels.

The way that I see it, is that the British government has had a multiple return on the value of services used in my case, which has more than balanced out the cost of others having the same advice. I know roughly the value of services that I've received, and I know roughly the level of benefit to HMRC directly on those services. The latter trumps the former every time.

If I hadn't been advised at the start in the way I had, while doing things on a tight budget (in fact, those who know me in real life know my background a lot better than some of the assumptions made, not by you but others, on this forum), then I likely wouldn't be in business at all, as I have strengths, but I also have weaknesses in terms of dealing with things.

The HMRC offering (in terms of the Business Support Helpline and its predecessors) is no match for the specialist knowledge and skills given by others working through the EU Business Networks throughout the EU, however I don't expect the average person to know that, which is why I'm making it clear.

I don't think the EU is perfect, however I think the EU project in itself has gone very much in the right direction in terms of non-core things such as this, and I think the gain overall is much more than the cost in cash terms from being in the union. I also think it's vital that the government makes up the funding post-Brexit for many of the non-core networks for exactly the same reason.

CKhalvashi

kabayiri wrote: »

That's not true though. Just 5 EU countries contribute over half the payments to the EU.

The reason for this is that there is clearly a divide between wealthy and poorer countries in the EU.

Because those 5 countries are the richest in the union.

I don't think you understand how the EU works, because in reality it's no different to means testing 28 houses on a street.

The households that earn more will pay in more tax than those that earn less. Everyone will then get some of that money back, however those that require more help will get more back than others. The difference is that this is a levy of about 1% of the GDP per annum, rather than a much bigger tax on income.

The EU has provided development funding in Wales and Cornwall. Now, my personal view is that they voted to leave the EU, which is a clear sign they no longer require the development funding they've been given, therefore the British government should not give it to them. That's instant money saved which will recoup part of the money lost as a result of leaving the EU.

The fact is though that after a quick Google, even the poorest EU country in 2004, was number 88 of 230 in terms of wealth. The poorest EU country that was then a member of the EU was number 75 in terms of purchasing power. This confirms what I've said, being that the average EU consumer can afford more than the average world consumer. I can't find anything more recent on the same website with a quick look (which is run by the US Government), however I think those figures are recent enough to show the first year in the EU for 8 of the countries, and if memory serves me right (I don't have time to look at each individual country now), all of those countries have experienced a real increase in their economy since joining, which narrows the gap further upwards in economic terms. The divide you mention is therefore decreasing.

So yes, through the single market we have access to 500 million wealthy consumers, and we're stupid to leave it IMO.

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Because those 5 countries are the richest in the union.

I don't think you understand how the EU works, because in reality it's no different to means testing 28 houses on a street.
...

No, it's the 5 houses on the street telling the other houses when their bins will be emptied (and in the case of Greece why theirs won't). This is because they pay most of the council tax bill and the others want something for nothing.

Actually, it's more like the German house at No 1 calling the shots. It's the big place (they bought a bit of everyone's garden when it was going cheap).

kabayiri

kabayiri wrote: »

...
This clip is Rebecca Long-Bailey, doing her level best to prove that Northerners really are as thick as they sound!

https://youtu.be/aAo0odHz7KY
...

Sorry for quoting my own post, but did you spot the dig by our mate Andrew about 55 seconds in, where he explains what the National Grid does ("carries electricity around the country") ?

Poor old Rebecca, she didn't twig. :rotfl:

antrobus

cogito wrote: »

Well, yes. Any fule no that coal mines and other unsightly stuff belong in the north.

Any fule no coal mines belong where there is coal. Which is a matter of geology and not politics.

P.S. Besides, I don't think we have any coal mines anymore. Of the deep pit type anyway. Although there are some opencast operations.

antrobus

Interest results from a YouGov poll. (Noted by Mr Wells at UKpollingreport)

They asked the question?

Which of the following election outcomes would you most like to see at the election next month?

I doubt people would be surprised to find out that 98% of Conservative voters want a Conservative majority. What might be surprising is that 17% of Labour voters want a Conservative majority, and another 5% of Labour Labour voters want a Conservative led coalition government.

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that 1 in 5 of Labour voters don't want a Labour government.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/g50dff7d4t/YouGov%20-%20Evening%20Standard%20-%20Election%20outcomes%20-%20170510.pdf