General Election 2017

[simmo]

er, yes, I realise that, which is why I refer to Blair admitting that the Iraq war contributed to the rise of ISIS. Tony Blair for ****'s sake!

To suggest that because France were opposed to Iraq then they wouldn't be targeted by ISIS, which I think is that you're saying, might work if ISIS did things in a relatively logical way, but they're complete loons. No rule book applies to them.

The Iraq war contributed to the rise of ISIS so how can it not be linked to what we are seeing today?

Well you did not realise that most agree that the war on terror started on 9/11/2001, but said it started with the Iraq war which is wrong...

Corbyn is Labour, Blair is Labour...for Corbyn to try to disassociate himself from the party he now leads (has he forgotten this?) actions 15 or so years ago, is a bit rich....not that I am going to back up Blair....but George W would have invaded Iraq with or without Blair.....and George W invaded Iraq (in my opinion) because of what occured on 9/11/2001.....why Bin Laden did what he did on 9/11 who knows, but Bin Laden et al also tried to blow up the World Trade Centre in the mid 90's as well during Clinton's presidency (so Bush isn't the issue) and we could go back and back past the creation of Israel etc etc (I know Bin Laden is Al Queda and ISIS are different, but that to me is a moot point. I look at it as fundemental Islamic terrorism and at the moment the organisation of choice is ISIS for your islamic loon, 15 years ago it was Al Queda)

 

[nicko31]

Voting Lib Dem as we have a very good local MP who has worked hard for the community over a period of 20 years.

Surprised at the number proposing to vote Labour in view of Diane Abbot's and Corbyn's recent performances.

It won't be 2010 for LD's, but in key seats they will do well, but not well in the SW

 

[W.C.]

Well you did not realise that most agree that the war on terror started on 9/11/2001, but said it started with the Iraq war which is wrong...

Corbyn is Labour, Blair is Labour...for Corbyn to try to disassociate himself from the party he now leads (has he forgotten this?) actions 15 or so years ago, is a bit rich....not that I am going to back up Blair....but George W would have invaded Iraq with or without Blair.....and George W invaded Iraq (in my opinion) because of what occured on 9/11/2001.....why Bin Laden did what he did on 9/11 who knows, but Bin Laden et al also tried to blow up the World Trade Centre in the mid 90's as well during Clinton's presidency (so Bush isn't the issue) and we could go back and back past the creation of Israel etc etc (I know Bin Laden is Al Queda and ISIS are different, but that to me is a moot point. I look at it as fundemental Islamic terrorism and at the moment the organisation of choice is ISIS for your islamic loon, 15 years ago it was Al Queda)

Yes, I admitted I was wrong about that a few posts back, posting before thinking.
I don't see why Corbyn can't express an opinion that he has held for many many years, and that many people agree with. Iraq wasn't the be all and end all of the creation of ISIS, I know that. But it contributed to it. And significantly enough for even Blair to come close to admitting that it did.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Don't want him JC to win, the key in this election is to vote tactically to keep the Tories in check and keep their majority to a minimum. This election is like no other, tactical damage limitation voting as follows...

Brighton Kemptown - Vote Labour
Brighton Pavillon - Vote Green
Hove - Vote Labour
East Worthing and Shoreham - Vote Labour
Worthing - Vote Labour
Lewes - Vote Lib Dem
Littlehampton & Bognor - Vote Lib Dem
Eastbourne - Vote Lib Dem

Tactical voting is for brainless morons. Vote for polices, vote for a specific person but voting 'tactically' shows a complete lack of thinking and intelligence.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Tactical voting is for brainless morons. Vote for polices, vote for a specific person but voting 'tactically' shows a complete lack of thinking and intelligence.

Rubbish - it is what our democratic system forces you to do. Perhaps someone likes the policies of 2 or 3 other parties, but absolutely disagrees with 1, then voting tactically is a democratic informed decision, made on the basis of reducing the chances of the 1 gaining seats. Ridiculous thing for you to say with our current constituency system where many millions of voters feel their voice is never heard.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

.

I consider Saudi Arabia a vile and despicable state BUT you do realise how much intelligence they give us don't you ? IRA loving Corbyn achieved nothing ( nor tried to ) with his cosy tea parties with the IRA commanders/murderers.

 

[Bozza]

The IFS are reviewing both the Labour and Conservative manifestos this morning.

First up Labour's supposedly fully-costed manifesto that would help the poorest in society. Damning:

What Labour actually want you to hear is that the spending increases they promise, pretty much across the board, on higher education, childcare, schools, health, welfare, and the rest, would be funded by tax increases solely affecting the rich and companies. This would not happen.

They have supposedly identified £49 billion of tax increases. That is an overestimate. They certainly shouldn’t plan on their stated tax increases raising more than £40 billion in the short run, and more likely than not they would raise less than that. They would certainly raise considerably less in the longer term.

And the big increases in corporate taxes that they propose would still make a broad group of people worse off just as surely as would increases in VAT or in the standard rates of income tax – as the Liberal Democrats propose. When businesses pay tax, they are handing over money that would otherwise have ended up with people, and not only rich ones. Millions with pension funds are effectively shareholders.

In the longer term, much of the cost is likely to be passed to workers through lower wages or consumers through higher prices. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t tax businesses. But we shouldn’t pretend that it is somehow victimless and hence fundamentally different from personal taxation. The impacts on households are just less transparent.

What Labour would do in the event that revenues did not come in as planned is unclear – would they raise other taxes, spend less or borrow more?

 

[Jim D]

There is only one party taking this election seriously and trying to spell out what will need to happen in the years after Brexit. It's not JC and his sunshine gang.

 

[Bozza]

More from the IFS. In summary "same old Labour":

For Labour we can have pretty much everything – free HE, free childcare, more spending on pay, health, infrastructure. And the pretence is that can all be funded by faceless corporations and “the rich”. There is a choice we can make as a country to have a bigger state. That would not make us unusual in international terms. But that comes at a cost in higher taxes which would inevitably need to be borne by large numbers of us.

Labour are not merely asking for a bit more from the top 5% whilst leaving “ordinary households” alone. There is no way that the tens of billions of pounds of tax rises they promise would be borne entirely by such a small group. If only policy-making were that easy.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There is only one party taking this election seriously and trying to spell out what will need to happen in the years after Brexit. It's not JC and his sunshine gang.

Which one? You can't mean the one that said no cap on social care in their manifesto then 3 days later said there would be, so which party?

 

[ManOfSussex]

What are The IFS saying about The Conservative manifesto then?

 

[Bold Seagull]

More from the IFS. In summary "same old Labour":

For Labour we can have pretty much everything – free HE, free childcare, more spending on pay, health, infrastructure. And the pretence is that can all be funded by faceless corporations and “the rich”. There is a choice we can make as a country to have a bigger state. That would not make us unusual in international terms. But that comes at a cost in higher taxes which would inevitably need to be borne by large numbers of us.

Labour are not merely asking for a bit more from the top 5% whilst leaving “ordinary households” alone. There is no way that the tens of billions of pounds of tax rises they promise would be borne entirely by such a small group. If only policy-making were that easy.

Are you going to summarise the IFS review of the Tory one too?

 

[Bozza]

What are The IFS saying about The Conservative manifesto then?

The Conservative manifesto by contrast appears to be selling a “steady as she goes” prospectus. But that does not mean no change from today because the Conservatives in government have already laid down big policy plans. It means big cuts in welfare spending. It means another parliament of austerity for the public services, including an incredibly challenging period for the NHS and real cuts to per pupil funding in schools.

It is not clear that this would be deliverable. Barely two months after the 2015 general election they announced spending plans that were less tight than set out in their manifesto. Maybe they would do that again. I would also not bet against a Conservative government finding some additional tax raising measures.

The Conservatives simply offer the cuts already promised. Additional funding pledges for the NHS and schools are just confirming that spending would rise in a way broadly consistent with the March Budget. Compared with Labour they are offering a relatively smaller state and consequently lower taxes. With that offer come unacknowledged risks to the quality of public services, and tough choices over spending. The difficulty in making some of those choices has been well exemplified by the to-ing and fro-ing, to put it politely, over the funding of social care.

 

[Bozza]

Oops. Perhaps Diane Abbott costed this.

[tweet]868028783768612865[/tweet]

 

[CHAPPERS]

The Conservative manifesto by contrast appears to be selling a “steady as she goes” prospectus. But that does not mean no change from today because the Conservatives in government have already laid down big policy plans It means big cuts in welfare spending. It means another parliament of austerity for the public services, including an incredibly challenging period for the NHS and real cuts to per pupil funding in schools

It is not clear that this would be deliverable. Barely two months after the 2015 general election they announced spending plans that were less tight than set out in their manifesto. Maybe they would do that again. I would also not bet against a Conservative government finding some additional tax raising measures.

The Conservatives simply offer the cuts already promised. Additional funding pledges for the NHS and schools are just confirming that spending would rise in a way broadly consistent with the March Budget. Compared with Labour they are offering a relatively smaller state and consequently lower taxes. With that offer come unacknowledged risks to the quality of public services, and tough choices over spending. The difficulty in making some of those choices has been well exemplified by the to-ing and fro-ing, to put it politely, over the funding of social care.

Don't you need to bold some of that?

 

[W.C.]

Today I learned the expression 'O-turn'.

 

[Bozza]

Don't you need to bold some of that?

Fill your boots. There's nothing in there that anyone didn't really know, is there? In contrast, Labour's Jackanory costings have been analysed and laid out for all to see.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The Conservative manifesto by contrast appears to be selling a “steady as she goes” prospectus. But that does not mean no change from today because the Conservatives in government have already laid down big policy plans. It means big cuts in welfare spending. It means another parliament of austerity for the public services, including an incredibly challenging period for the NHS and real cuts to per pupil funding in schools.

It is not clear that this would be deliverable. Barely two months after the 2015 general election they announced spending plans that were less tight than set out in their manifesto. Maybe they would do that again. I would also not bet against a Conservative government finding some additional tax raising measures.

The Conservatives simply offer the cuts already promised. Additional funding pledges for the NHS and schools are just confirming that spending would rise in a way broadly consistent with the March Budget. Compared with Labour they are offering a relatively smaller state and consequently lower taxes. With that offer come unacknowledged risks to the quality of public services, and tough choices over spending. The difficulty in making some of those choices has been well exemplified by the to-ing and fro-ing, to put it politely, over the funding of social care.

Interesting points - isn't a vote for Labour a strong message to the government that their taxation policies do need to be more progressive? I get the impression, yourself included, that many Tory voters want the party to move back to the centre, that cuts need to be balanced with fair taxation.

I know during a general election it gets very partisan, but reading between the lines, it seems many want a centrist option which neither main party is really giving. The lack of detail from the government, who should have the detail as they're running the country is really alarming for me, like they're keeping their real plans back.

Personally I'd consider it a decent result if they don't increase their majority. I'd like to see them pulled to the centre ground rather than having a huge mandate. Good summaries btw.

 

[Bozza]

Interesting points - isn't a vote for Labour a strong message to the government that their taxation policies do need to be more progressive? I get the impression, yourself included, that many Tory voters want the party to move back to the centre, that cuts need to be balanced with fair taxation.

I know during a general election it gets very partisan, but reading between the lines, it seems many want a centrist option which neither main party is really giving. The lack of detail from the government, who should have the detail as they're running the country is really alarming for me, like they're keeping their real plans back.

Personally I'd consider it a decent result if they don't increase their majority. I'd like to see them pulled to the centre ground rather than having a huge mandate. Good summaries btw.

I'm not sure how you classify what "a Tory voter" is. If it's always put a tick in the same box regardless, then I'm certainly not one. I have voted Conservative in the past, I don't see how I possibly could in this election.

A simple "We want our schools, the NHS and our caring for the poor and vulnerable to be better. To do that, we all have to pay more, and do so starting today. Vote for us if you're happy to pay more." would probably get my vote. But how many other votes would it get? Most of us (although not everyone) here are relatively well off, aren't we? We're not struggling to keep a roof over our heads, nor to feed and clothe our kids.

Labour want to borrow huge sums to deliver what we probably all want and, particularly as we enter Brexit, I find that very worrying.

The Tories plan on borrowing significantly less, but that comes with compromises in funding to public services, putting severe pressures on them. I find that very worrying too.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The Conservative manifesto by contrast appears to be selling a “steady as she goes” prospectus. But that does not mean no change from today because the Conservatives in government have already laid down big policy plans. It means big cuts in welfare spending. It means another parliament of austerity for the public services, including an incredibly challenging period for the NHS and real cuts to per pupil funding in schools.

It is not clear that this would be deliverable. Barely two months after the 2015 general election they announced spending plans that were less tight than set out in their manifesto. Maybe they would do that again. I would also not bet against a Conservative government finding some additional tax raising measures.

The Conservatives simply offer the cuts already promised. Additional funding pledges for the NHS and schools are just confirming that spending would rise in a way broadly consistent with the March Budget. Compared with Labour they are offering a relatively smaller state and consequently lower taxes. With that offer come unacknowledged risks to the quality of public services, and tough choices over spending. The difficulty in making some of those choices has been well exemplified by the to-ing and fro-ing, to put it politely, over the funding of social care.

The IFS also mentioned immigration policy harming the economy and tax take.

The school meals 'plan' is also complete bollocks.