General Election - 8th June 2017

[Crusoe]

34 minutes ago, Latics and England said:

My biggest concerns about the Labour manifesto issued yesterday would be:

• this has been billed by the party as the 'most costed manifesto ever' and yet has a massive black hole over the largest costs. To simply add a section at the end of the costings stating that there is an expected quarter of a trillion additional spend on nationalisation and infrastructure which will take advantage of 'near record low interest rates'... I'm sorry, but that is not fully costed. I understand the argument that the actual costs of nationalisation cannot be known as the drivers are outside the Government's control but these costs will be significant and can't be ignored. To suggest as JC did in his interview with the BBC, that most of these will be cost neutral seems far fetched to me.

 

• The material increase in Corporation tax rates from 19% to 26% at the same time as we go through Brexit feels like a recipe for disaster. Whilst I do not anticipate a max migration of companies out of the UK following Brexit, combining more difficult EU trading relations with a hike in tax will undoubtably lead to some outflows. I am not in favour of offering favourable rates to big companies to stay but I don't think we should be offering them dis-incentives at a difficult time.

 

Good points. There's a lot of great sounding ideas in the manifesto (and a few I'm not keen on) but an awful lot that needs millions or billions of investment or a reversal in the way things have actually transpired in the past for governments of either persuasion.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Crusoe

[Matt]

On 13/05/2017 at 1:39 PM, kowenicki said:

 

Policies that aren't deliverable.

 

 

Labour don't hold the exclusive rights to that accolade. The country is broke anyway, why not show a bit of creativity.

[frizzell54]

2 hours ago, jimsleftfoot said:

 

What if if they don't muck it up, what if they work out what they can deliver and deliver that?

 

 

Since when did any government deliver what was promised and since when did any government not 'muck it up'?  

[mcfluff1985]

What if it doesn't matter who you vote for because they'll all f you over anyway...

[Crusoe]

Isn't it the old question about whether it's better to aim high and fail, or to aim low and succeed?

 

Except in the case of British politics, failure (to deliver manifesto promises) seems normal regardless of where you aim.

 

I was reading today about the Overton window, and thinking that even if the Labour manifesto is completely unachievable, electoral support for the ideas within it might widen public debate and open up other parties' policies. Which, I think, can only be a good thing.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Crusoe

[jimsleftfoot]

35 minutes ago, frizzell54 said:

 

Since when did any government deliver what was promised and since when did any government not 'muck it up'?  

 

In fairness, you don't get to be one of the richest coutries in the world by mucking up. 

 

Though perhaps that's more a plus for the Tories than Labour.

 

Sweden are an example of where it can work, but whether Sweden can work for the UK is another question entirely.

 

Im not Jez's biggest fan, but his policies are progressive and it sends a message that we want the government to be less Tory at least.

[leeslover]

I don't read much into this thing about individual policies being popular. Most people would like more spending on the police/NHS/army/pensions/roads and a few extra holidays and a tax cut but they can still see that all of them together isn't going to work out so well

[blueatheart]

12 minutes ago, leeslover said:

I don't read much into this thing about individual policies being popular. Most people would like more spending on the police/NHS/army/pensions/roads and a few extra holidays and a tax cut but they can still see that all of them together isn't going to work out so well

What did the Romans do for us?

Edited May 17, 2017 by blueatheart

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

It almost doesn't matter whether a proposal is costed or not. Most aren't, from any party...or they're not costed well enough to withstand the scrutiny of even an armchair accountant. 

 

What matters is trust. Trust gets you a fair hearing...where "fair hearing" means applying the same test to the different parties' proposals. The fact is that the Tories get away with the most blatant fiscal lies, while Labour get panned for promising so little as a penny over or under. It's got very little to do with the inherent merit or otherwise of a policy, or with the accountancy. (You can knacker the straw men in most manifestos by introducing a slightly different initial financial condition, such as a fall or rise in the pound.) It really depends on what stance you take in the first place, or what prism you're viewing this stuff through. That's why the opinion polls at the beginning of election more or less reflect the result.

 

Even the Spectator is saying that May promises to tax and spend more than Corbyn. But who's listening?

[disjointed]

1 hour ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

It almost doesn't matter whether a proposal is costed or not. Most aren't, from any party...or they're not costed well enough to withstand the scrutiny of even an armchair accountant. 

 

What matters is trust. Trust gets you a fair hearing...where "fair hearing" means applying the same test to the different parties' proposals. The fact is that the Tories get away with the most blatant fiscal lies, while Labour get panned for promising so little as a penny over or under. It's got very little to do with the inherent merit or otherwise of a policy, or with the accountancy. (You can knacker the straw men in most manifestos by introducing a slightly different initial financial condition, such as a fall or rise in the pound.) It really depends on what stance you take in the first place, or what prism you're viewing this stuff through. That's why the opinion polls at the beginning of election more or less reflect the result.

 

Even the Spectator is saying that May promises to tax and spend more than Corbyn. But who's listening?

The only shit that is sticking is all attached to Jezza, May can say what she wants, the popular press will get their way as always. 

[Stevie_J]

6 minutes ago, disjointed said:

May can say what she wants, the popular press will get their way as always. 

She's incapable of saying anything beyond whatever rehearsed soundbite she's prepared for the particular occasion.

[ChaddySmoker]

6 hours ago, Crusoe said:

Isn't it the old question about whether it's better to aim high and fail, or to aim low and succeed?

 

Except in the case of British politics, failure (to deliver manifesto promises) seems normal regardless of where you aim.

 

I was reading today about the Overton window, and thinking that even if the Labour manifesto is completely unachievable, electoral support for the ideas within it might widen public debate and open up other parties' policies. Which, I think, can only be a good thing.

Well said that man. Political debate has been dead in this country for years so anything that opens it up is to be admired.

Any voter with a calculator thinks that they are an economist and the contrasting idealogies do not get a look in.  

[Magister]

4 hours ago, ChaddySmoker said:

Well said that man. Political debate has been dead in this country for years so anything that opens it up is to be admired.

Any voter with a calculator thinks that they are an economist and the contrasting idealogies do not get a look in.  

So author of " vicar's daughter in flat shoes" bemoans the death of political debate, 

[GlossopLatic]

10 hours ago, disjointed said:

The only shit that is sticking is all attached to Jezza, May can say what she wants, the popular press will get their way as always. 

 

See the thing is their are alot of people like me who don't read The Sun or the Mail (I'm capable of independent thought) but don't want to back Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. I also live in a marginal constituency. The High Peak is currently Conservative. Between 97-2010 it was labour and prior to that it was Tory.

 

As others have pointed out he lacks the pragmatism of a good prime minister. His mass nationalisation and saying that the rich people are going to pay for it appears about as flawed as Trump saying Mexico is going to pay for his daft wall.

[ChaddySmoker]

11 hours ago, Magister said:

So author of " vicar's daughter in flat shoes" bemoans the death of political debate, 

There seems to be only yourself who has had a sense of humour bypass.

Never mind we will have a radical manifesto to discuss today full of brilliant ideas to improve our lives and give hope to us all.

Perhaps it's the austerity that was getting you down, love.

[leeslover]

May's Conservatism would have been slightly left of centre in New Labour. Corbyn's legacy might be to have vacated so much Labour space that she changed her party to move into it.

[HarryBosch]

I think Labour's biggest problem is that very few people recognise this miserable existence they're going to rescue us all from...

 

 

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

52 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

I think Labour's biggest problem is that very few people recognise this miserable existence they're going to rescue us all from...

 

 

 

That's true enough. Labour under Miliband did quite a good job for the Tories of lowering people's expectations (these cuts will hurt you!). It's not that they're not hurting and damaging...just people don't perceive it that way because it's not as bad as they were told it would be.

 

Brexit will definitely result in rusting cars on driveways though, which will be a genuinely tricky living standards crisis. 

 

57 minutes ago, leeslover said:

May's Conservatism would have been slightly left of centre in New Labour. Corbyn's legacy might be to have vacated so much Labour space that she changed her party to move into it.

 

I haven't seen the manifesto and probably won't bother...but she's in a strong enough position to increase taxes or introduce new heinous ones to pay for Osborne's failures. It's a vote loser...but she has votes to lose.

Edited May 18, 2017 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[View Of Golden Gate]

I always try and see both points of view with political debates, I disagree with Brexit but I understand why people voted. I am really struggling to see how May's policies can be popular? Taking free school lunches off infants? Can a single person tell me who this benefits? Means testing for the elderly fine, however, this a May government so goodbye nice relaxed retirement hello spending your last few years at the food bank.

 

People say it is too dramatic to say that disabled and elderly will die on the streets, and to be fair most will find a way. Do we really want a country where disabled, the elderly and the unemployed find a way? I work everyday to put food in my belly and roof over my head, I have the chance to do that, though. Others don't, we should be helping these people. Giving them a life, helping their children have a better crack at it then they had. Instead we leave them to it, give them minimal support and wash our hands of their problems. We live in a country where asking questions means you are a conspiracy theorist or a traitor, a national newspaper rad a headline about destroying the saboteurs, as if there is a group of people who want to this nation fail just because they don't like General May of The Peoples' Army For The Destruction of People.

 

This is a woman who cannot talk to normal everyday voters, it is a woman who is scared to debate a man she describes as being unfit to lead. Oh let her handle the negotiations with Junker, Merkal and Macron that will be a piece of piss. This is a woman who is fighting over the very time and contents to negotiate the EU with. As if any form of compromise is a defeat, no deal is better than a bad one!! No deal is a bad deal,

 

"The EU have an agenda," of course they do they want to it work. We have an agenda, May has an agenda. It is not a bad thing to have an agenda, we are getting fooled by buzz words and phrases. "Strong and stable" what is that? The foundations of a House? We are talking about a political party with people spinning multiple plates. I want a flexible government, if you don't look at this manifesto and think "oh bloody hell" then you must be in the 5% it benefits.

[HarryBosch]

3 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

I always try and see both points of view with political debates, I disagree with Brexit but I understand why people voted. I am really struggling to see how May's policies can be popular? Taking free school lunches off infants? Can a single person tell me who this benefits?

 

It was only brought in 2 or 3 years ago and never existed under Labour who are now up in arms about it going. 

 

Infants from low income families will still get free dinners as they will in the juniors and seniors. 

 

My kids (and us) prefer a packed lunch to the weapons grade muck their "Proud to be a healthy eating" School serve up..

[opinions4u]

 this a May government so goodbye nice relaxed retirement hello spending your last few years at the food bank.

 

Theyre not meant to spend their winter fuel allowance in Tesco.

[kowenicki]

2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

It was only brought in 2 or 3 years ago and never existed under Labour who are now up in arms about it going. 

 

Infants from low income families will still get free dinners as they will in the juniors and seniors. 

 

My kids (and us) prefer a packed lunch to the weapons grade muck their "Proud to be a healthy eating" School serve up..

 

Labour up in arms about a policy they never felt necessary in 13 years of government.

 

is it right that a couple who earn a combined 100k a year get a free school meal?  of course it isn't.

 

is it right that a retired couple living in Knutsford with a heated swimming pool get heating allowance?  of course it isn't.

 

 

[View Of Golden Gate]

5 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

Infants from low income families will still get free dinners as they will in the juniors and seniors. 

Define low income, I was not classed as low income yet struggled to make ends meet. As less than £200 a week is seen as enough to run an household.

 

My kids (and us) prefer a packed lunch to the weapons grade muck their "Proud to be a healthy eating" School serve up..

Then don't take advantage, why does that mean it is a good thing to deny others the chance to have them?

3 minutes ago, opinions4u said:

 

 

 

Theyre not meant to spend their winter fuel allowance in Tesco.

 

Oh so we give them a choice between food or heat, it is after all out of the same pot in one way or another. 

I'm not disagreeing with the idea of means tested benefits, I disagree with this current government's view on what means this is. Wealthy people do not need free dinners or their heating bill subsidised, but why is it we turn a blind eye to those who the government, the people we elect and pay, turn their back on those who are struggling.

 

This one size fits all benefit system does not work, and just saying we cannot do any more doesn't cut it. We are living in a country where outside of a restaurant charging meals for £50 sits a person unable to eat or sleep safely, that isn't May's fault anymore than it is mine or anyone on here. She has the power to change it though, and has she? Of course not, the lowest income families are worse than they have been in the modern era. But who cares? We are losing our NHS a beacon of light in this country, free healthcare, it is a wonderful thing. They want to sell it? Cut the budget, and destroy it. Will May suffer? No she is private, will her peers suffer? No they are private. 

 

Millions worth of revenue leaves the UK every year to foreign companies who run our railways, built by us for us and they make the money? Our motorways are now up for sale, which means more toll roads and more expenditure for those who need a car for work. God knows you'll need work, because these bastards won't help if you don't.

 

Cuts to education has to be inexcusable, this our childrens' futures we are talking about here. And their schools are being told to stop spending so much money, teaching them. Improving them as people, improving their knowledge and their chance for success, and the money to do this is being cut. Tell me how that makes sense. Will it affect May? No, even if she had kids they would be private. (I don't care she doesn't by the way, just showing that her plans don't hurt her) We are all in this together unless you are rich, then you don't have to worry.

[HarryBosch]

1 minute ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

Cuts to education has to be inexcusable, this our childrens' futures we are talking about here. And their schools are being told to stop spending so much money, 

 

I thought I'd read they were pledging an extra £4bn for education?

 

 

[HarryBosch]

3 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

I'm not disagreeing with the idea of means tested benefits, I disagree with this current government's view on what means this is. Wealthy people do not need free dinners or their heating bill subsidised, but why is it we turn a blind eye to those who the government, the people we elect and pay, turn their back on those who are struggling.

 

This one size fits all benefit system does not work, and just saying we cannot do any more doesn't cut it. We are living in a country where outside of a restaurant charging meals for £50 sits a person unable to eat or sleep safely, that isn't May's fault anymore than it is mine or anyone on here. She has the power to change it though, and has she? Of course not, the lowest income families are worse than they have been in the modern era. But who cares? We are losing our NHS a beacon of light in this country, free healthcare, it is a wonderful thing. They want to sell it? Cut the budget, and destroy it. Will May suffer? No she is private, will her peers suffer? No they are private. 

 

Millions worth of revenue leaves the UK every year to foreign companies who run our railways, built by us for us and they make the money? Our motorways are now up for sale, which means more toll roads and more expenditure for those who need a car for work. God knows you'll need work, because these bastards won't help if you don't.

 

Cuts to education has to be inexcusable, this our childrens' futures we are talking about here. And their schools are being told to stop spending so much money, teaching them. Improving them as people, improving their knowledge and their chance for success, and the money to do this is being cut. Tell me how that makes sense. Will it affect May? No, even if she had kids they would be private. (I don't care she doesn't by the way, just showing that her plans don't hurt her) We are all in this together unless you are rich, then you don't have to worry.

 

I don't recognise this country you're telling us you live in. 

 

I don't just mean for myself but for friends, family, clients, young, old, poor, ok financially (can't say I know anyone "rich" - apart from Tulsehill maybe & I don't know him very well), working, not working, never worked....

 

They all seem fine.