the snap general election thread

steampowered

Conrad wrote: »

Populist left wing policies of the money spraying variety Corbyn is offering is very attractive to a lot of gullible people that think simple solutions will answer all our problems.

Thanks goodness the Tories are having a re-think and looking at a cap.

A cap on social care costs sounds like exactly the kind of populist left wing policy you seem to dislike.

You are asking the government to write a blank cheque for people's care costs, even when they have the ability to pay for it themselves.

How on Earth can you describe the government funding peoples inheritance as anything but populist.

kabayiri

As a voter, I should like Corbyns' plans for free Uni education. It would save me money, and soon.

However, I recall Vince Cable saying how Gordon Brown/Blair realized free H.E was unaffordable during the New Labour days. He himself realized that the coallition could not afford free H.E either back in 2010.

So what has changed for us to be able to afford it now? ....Given that the national debt has doubled since then.

Is Corbyn offering bribes which he simply cannot support?

steampowered

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You don't want a political party that listens to opinion then?

I would prefer a political party that thinks through its policies before announcing them.

Not announce policies on the hoof and doing a U-turn two minutes later.

Utter chaos and complete incompetence. It seems Theresa May is sticking with the "make up policy on the hoof as you go along" approach rather than the thoughtful and considered approach.

Fella

Conrad wrote: »

Populist left wing policies of the money spraying variety Corbyn is offering is very attractive to a lot of gullible people that think simple solutions will answer all our problems.

May took a big (& unnecessary) risk with her manifesto. Labour's policy is to abandon all pretence of a properly costed plan & simply promise everything in sight to everybody & "tell" them it's costed. Basically a simple case of hoping the bigger the lie they more they believe. May is either trusting that the electorate are intelligent enough to see through this or trusting that people are now so keen on Brexit that they will vote Tory regardless. Probably not the best strategy against a party who are quite as prepared to lie on the scale that Corbyn's Labour are.


I just watched Chuka Umunna on Daily Politics glibly re-writing history re Corbyn & the IRA & trying to make out his support for them was part of the peace process. This article illustrates the truth behind that particular (& huge) lie:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-should-not-be-allowed-to-rewrite-the-history-of-his-support-for-the-ira/

Conrad

steampowered wrote: »

A cap on social care costs sounds like exactly the kind of populist left wing policy you seem to dislike.

You are asking the government to write a blank cheque for people's care costs, even when they have the ability to pay for it themselves.

How on Earth can you describe the government funding peoples inheritance as anything but populist.

The problem is that set against Corbyns pennies from heaven manifesto, the Tory care policy is simply too difficult to sell.


We cannot let Corbyn and Abbott run this nation, it would be a disaster for anyone other than those gaming the system. Their open door immigration alone would see any amount of new housing get snapped up - totally unsustainable and ruinous for the green belt

steampowered

kabayiri wrote: »

As a voter, I should like Corbyns' plans for free Uni education. It would save me money, and soon.

However, I recall Vince Cable saying how Gordon Brown/Blair realized free H.E was unaffordable during the New Labour days. He himself realized that the coallition could not afford free H.E either back in 2010.

So what has changed for us to be able to afford it now? ....Given that the national debt has doubled since then.

Is Corbyn offering bribes which he simply cannot support?

The tuition fee proposal is fully costed. Have a look at http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017, and click the "funding Britain" link.

That very simply sets out the cost of what Labour is proposing - including how much abolishing tuition fees would cost - and how it will be paid for.

Pretty much every other European country - including Scotland - manages to do without tuition fees. There is no reason why England has to be any different - we managed to do without tuition fees for decades. Charging kids £9.3k a year to go to university is a political choice, not a necessity.

That is a very different approach to the Tories, who have not bothered to cost the 60 spending commitments in their manifesto.

We simply don't know whether the Conservative manifesto commitments will be paid for by additional tax rises, additional debt or by further spending cuts to organisations like the NHS. I reckon that Conservative VAT increases (the Tories said they had no plans to raise VAT during the last election but then did so in their last budget) and national insurance rises (the Tories tried to do that in their last budget but U-turned) are likely.

steampowered

Conrad wrote: »

The problem is that set against Corbyns pennies from heaven manifesto, the Tory care policy is simply too difficult to sell.

"Pennies from heaven"?

The Labour manifesto is costed. Here is Labour's costing document which sets out very simply how Labour's manifesto would be paid for.

Labour have at least been honest about how their manifesto is going to be paid for. Unlike the Conservative or Lib Dem manifesto.

We cannot let Corbyn and Abbott run this nation, it would be a disaster for anyone other than those gaming the system. Their open door immigration alone would see any amount of new housing get snapped up - totally unsustainable and ruinous for the green belt

The only comment I will make on this - is that net immigration has been higher since the Conservatives were elected, than it ever was under Labour.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

Labour's policy is to abandon all pretence of a properly costed plan & simply promise everything in sight to everybody & "tell" them it's costed.

Absolute nonsense. Labour's costing document clearly sets out the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for its manifesto.

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

The problem is that set against Corbyns pennies from heaven manifesto, the Tory care policy is simply too difficult to sell.


We cannot let Corbyn and Abbott run this nation, it would be a disaster for anyone other than those gaming the system. Their open door immigration alone would see any amount of new housing get snapped up - totally unsustainable and ruinous for the green belt

It would work out quite well however, for the 95% of people whose tax wouldn't rise, and for anyone considering getting old at some point, and for people who don't understand why the rest of Europe doesn't load £30k plus of HE fees onto their young people when they barely out of their teens but Britain has to.


And it would be quite good for the NHS, which is on its knees thanks to the Tories, and anyone who wants to use it. And it would be good for anyone who might selfishly expect their child to have a school to attend. And it would workout well for the army too, who would see the first rise in conventional defence in years, and it would be good for people who don't want the government accessing their computer without a warrant.


A Labour government would also be good for anyone wanting a house to live in, and people who don't want to erect some kind of curtain of hatred between us and our European allies.


Or just generally for people who don't want the UK to split and England to be left as an isolated, poorer, more angry version of America.


Just saying.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

steampowered wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Labour's costing document clearly sets out the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for its manifesto.

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to today's edition of Citizen Smith."


Labours costing document is very widely acknowledged to be sadly lacking from a range of respected sources, including The Institute For Fiscal Studies.

As The Independent says:

The assertion that Labour would bring in £6.4bn by clamping down on tax avoidance is simply a made-up number, in the sense that it’s an aspiration, rather than being based on any kind of programme that can be evaluated

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-manifesto-conservatives-costings-promises-a7738721.html

Here's what C4's FactCheck says:

Drill down into some of the specific numbers, and the sense of vagueness and uncertainty grows.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-labour-manifesto

So instead of your baloney I say "Power to the people!"
June 8th will soon be here.