[Politics] The General Election Thread

[BensGrandad]

Poor you, if only you had learned how to use your TV remote properly, we can only imagine the trauma and strain you just put your automatic garage door through just now with your manic button pressing....

,Nothing of the sort I wanted to see what they were promising, so watched it, but it was very poor.and said nothing.really.

 

[clapham_gull]

..so what hope of promoting the country.

What for some kind of post brexit international trade mission promoting Scotch Eggs and Corby Trouser Presses and fronted by Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen ?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Just to make it clear though, Labour are not proposing to increase Basic Rate Tax nor NI,

The point is Tories are making Labour out to be spending insane amounts of money when it is a relatively normal budget by European standards.

It also strikes me that the further the Tories cut tax the harder it is for Labour to deliver their plans without radically increasing tax and thereby rendering themselves unelectable.

The reality is Corbyn cannot fund his spending plans with the pitifully low tax take without borrowing us into oblivion. He has to raise taxes at some point.

The problem is the electorate have bought the Tory lies and voted for low taxation, so now we can't afford to run a basic level of NHS, education and social services. Big companies and the rich have gotten away with paying a relative pittance re Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The LibDems smugly boasting on the TV how they’ve stepped aside in Brighton Pavilion, to give Caroline Lucas a chance as a Remain candidate.

What utter tosh. Lucas already had the seat tied up, her vote is only going to grow in a staunchly Remain constituency. The LibDems are effectively irrelevant in the constituency.

LibDems arrogance.

This is exactly why I vote for who I consider will represent me at constituency level the best. Because traiditional partisan politics is absolutely screwed. I don't believe for a minute that the Lib Dems are all cuddly and nice and just want to compromise and revoke Brexit. They are as nakedly ambitious as the Tories and just as hard for me to commit to, despite, ideologially, being a centerist social liberal.

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is just a cuddly old Scandanvian style Social Democrat granddad is equally as deluded. He was nominated as leader basically by mistake - to make up the numbers. As dumb a decision as when Pig***king Dave thought to himself "I know, I'll end the schism in my party once and for all by having a referendum on Europe and I'll be so terrific that wil be it for EVER". Nearly as dumb as when May went to the country to increase her majority

And then there's Boris. A "one nation" Tory who may also be Trump's best mate and slightly to the right of Thatcher. The problem is, no one can tell because every time he opens his mouth he lies and he couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall (that's not me saying that, that's Ken Clarke and his civil servants from the foreign Ministry who had to employ a "pooper scooper" for him).

Not a single one worthy of a vote if this was a presidential race and yet likely to be your only real choices at wealding power.

And that's not even where it ends. The desire to overturn the traditional parties can lead -as we've seen in Italy - to popularism and just as much chaos.

 

[vegster]

The point is Tories are making Labour out to be spending insane amounts of money when it is a relatively normal budget by European standards.

It also strikes me that the further the Tories cut tax the harder it is for Labour to deliver their plans without radically increasing tax and thereby rendering themselves unelectable.

The reality is Corbyn cannot fund his spending plans with the pitifully low tax take without borrowing us into oblivion. He has to raise taxes at some point.

The problem is the electorate have bought the Tory lies and voted for low taxation, so now we can't afford to run a basic level of NHS, education and social services. Big companies and the rich have gotten away with paying a relative pittance re Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax.

One way round it would be to encourage companies to actually pay workers a decent wage, then tax receipts would go up from individuals rather than these worried rich people. In my company annual wage increases do not exist, you have to beg every couple of years and hope you can catch up with inflation for a few months every now and then..... My only regular " Wage Rise" is when the Personal Allowance goes up each budget that then means I save Income Tax on £500 or so.

 

[Weststander]

This is exactly why I vote for who I consider will represent me at constituency level the best. Because traiditional partisan politics is absolutely screwed. I don't believe for a minute that the Lib Dems are all cuddly and nice and just want to compromise and revoke Brexit. They are as nakedly ambitious as the Tories and just as hard for me to commit to, despite, ideologially, being a centerist social liberal.

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is just a cuddly old Scandanvian style Social Democrat granddad is equally as deluded. He was nominated as leader basically by mistake - to make up the numbers. As dumb a decision as when Pig***king Dave thought to himself "I know, I'll end the schism in my party once and for all by having a referendum on Europe and I'll be so terrific that wil be it for EVER". Nearly as dumb as when May went to the country to increase her majority

And then there's Boris. A "one nation" Tory who may also be Trump's best mate and slightly to the right of Thatcher. The problem is, no one can tell because every time he opens his mouth he lies and he couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall (that's not me saying that, that's Ken Clarke and his civil servants from the foreign Ministry who had to employ a "pooper scooper" for him).

Not a single one worthy of a vote if this was a presidential race and yet likely to be your only real choices at wealding power.

And that's not even where it ends. The desire to overturn the traditional parties can lead -as we've seen in Italy - to popularism and just as much chaos.

Margaret Beckett was the fool, ironically a Blairite and in no way a mate of the hard left, who said “Oh, we need a left candidate for some balance, what about maverick backbencher Corbyn?”. Party membership almost tripled at £3 a joining fee, and the hard left coup was set in stone.

Just making it incredibly hard for Labour to get 326 plus seats at a General Election, when normally an incumbent Government with huge internal rifts (over Europe) would be wiped out.

Corbyn may be loved by a few NSC’ers, but it’s the country (Midlands and Northern marginals) that need to rate the guy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is exactly why I vote for who I consider will represent me at constituency level the best. Because traiditional partisan politics is absolutely screwed. I don't believe for a minute that the Lib Dems are all cuddly and nice and just want to compromise and revoke Brexit. They are as nakedly ambitious as the Tories and just as hard for me to commit to, despite, ideologially, being a centerist social liberal.

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is just a cuddly old Scandanvian style Social Democrat granddad is equally as deluded. He was nominated as leader basically by mistake - to make up the numbers. As dumb a decision as when Pig***king Dave thought to himself "I know, I'll end the schism in my party once and for all by having a referendum on Europe and I'll be so terrific that wil be it for EVER". Nearly as dumb as when May went to the country to increase her majority

And then there's Boris. A "one nation" Tory who may also be Trump's best mate and slightly to the right of Thatcher. The problem is, no one can tell because every time he opens his mouth he lies and he couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall (that's not me saying that, that's Ken Clarke and his civil servants from the foreign Ministry who had to employ a "pooper scooper" for him).

Not a single one worthy of a vote if this was a presidential race and yet likely to be your only real choices at wealding power.


And that's not even where it ends. The desire to overturn the traditional parties can lead -as we've seen in Italy - to popularism and just as much chaos.

This, in a tall glass, three fingers of gin and one of Martini, with three olives. Black.

In terms of danger, though, a knock at the door at midnight, the sudden disappearance of the contents of my savings account, the termination of my contract, the shove in the back on the Jubilee line platform at Waterloo . . . I think the Boris tories have no boundaries and are seriously dangerous. Maybe not just yet, but soon. Most psychopaths don't kill anyone unless they really have to. With some of the hands now up Boris' glove puppet-like arse, with his complicity, noting some of the completely unneccessary bits of overkill and outrage he's already attempted, I see no limits to his deviance. He has to be stopped.

 

[Weststander]

The point is Tories are making Labour out to be spending insane amounts of money when it is a relatively normal budget by European standards.

It also strikes me that the further the Tories cut tax the harder it is for Labour to deliver their plans without radically increasing tax and thereby rendering themselves unelectable.

The reality is Corbyn cannot fund his spending plans with the pitifully low tax take without borrowing us into oblivion. He has to raise taxes at some point.

The problem is the electorate have bought the Tory lies and voted for low taxation, so now we can't afford to run a basic level of NHS, education and social services. Big companies and the rich have gotten away with paying a relative pittance re Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax.

Corbyn & McDonnell frequently reference Scananavian economics.

The corporation tax rates are:
UK 19%
Denmark 22%
Finland 20%
Sweden soon falling to 20.6%
A few years ago, all these had CT rates of circa 34%. Rates are falling in an increasingly competitive world.

They raise the huge sums required to pay for their excellent social systems, by taxing almost all individuals very heavily.

Working in Stockholm, someone grossing 375,000 krona (£30,000) pays total taxes of 58%. Giving a monthly net pay equivalent of just £1,050.

In England, £30,000 gives a net monthly take home of £1,995.


A politician needs to come clean about this .... we’d all have to get used to vastly reduced take home pay, to have any chance of living the Scandinavian socio-economic dream.

From what I can see, the front bench politicians of all the main parties are disingenuous when it come to taxation.

 

[wellquickwoody]

And if, a further 20 years down the line, it was proven that through new working methods, processes and structures, productivity could be maintained, within a 3 day week, why shouldn't they want that?

Western capitalist society has its attitudes to the work / life balance all wrong.

This.

Free cider and spliffs?

 

[Hastings gull]

Corbyn & McDonnell frequently reference Scananavian economics.

The corporation tax rates are:
UK 19%
Denmark 22%
Finland 20%
Sweden soon falling to 20.6%
A few years ago, all these had CT rates of circa 34%. Rates are falling in an increasingly competitive world.

They raise the huge sums required to pay for their excellent social systems, by taxing almost all individuals very heavily.

Working in Stockholm, someone grossing 375,000 krona (£30,000) pays total taxes of 58%. Giving a monthly net pay equivalent of just £1,050.

In England, £30,000 gives a net monthly take home of £1,995.


A politician needs to come clean about this .... we’d all have to get used to vastly reduced take home pay, to have any chance of living the Scandinavian socio-economic dream.

From what I can see, the front bench politicians of all the main parties are disingenuous when it come to taxation.

From my time in Germany I would periodically meet Danish folk, many of whom would say things like -Denmark is great if you are old and/or ill. You are quite right -if we want better health care, then it has to be paid for, and would involve a great deal more income tax being paid. The problem is that despite much virtue signalling in public, the vast majority would be unhappy to pay more tax, though we all expect the ambulance to arrive in 8 minutes. It was only a few months ago, when we heard that NHS waiting lists for things like hip replacements were as long as ever. And the reason given? NHS consultants refuse to work any more hours, as the amount of tax they would then pay, would not be worth it. Yes, they are top earners, but I strongly suspect that that principle would apply to most people. Either we want to pay more, and hopefully get more, or we don't. It's not all down to politicians.

 

[highflyer]

his own words Marx, Lenin and Trosky are his biggest influences. im sure theres a quote in favour of prolitarian revolution* too (although that may be from Milne).

from the last manifesto, £250bn for spending on unspecified investment and £250bn on a national bank, there is no plan for paying back the borrowing. if we play though it is effectively state control of the economy.

*edit is was "insurrection", here not denied but explained as being a bit excited.
i dont know why people want to refute Mcdonnell's faith in Marxism, if we want to tear down the broken capitalist system we need some alternative right?

McDonnell has a dry sense of humour which I think can lead him into trouble. But Marxist analysis has it's place in the canon of economic thought. Sajid Javid meanwhile talks about Ayn Rand as a hero - a second rate author and political nutjob with zero respect in any serious economic discussion I have ever been involved in.

But I would not claim that Javids professed admiration for Rand means that he'll be reducing the state to a shell designed only to protect the property of the wealthy. Anymore than anyone with any sense recognises that McDonnell is not actually planning to turn the UK into Communist Russia (or, of course, Venezuela).

 

[Hastings gull]

McDonnell has a dry sense of humour which I think can lead him into trouble. But Marxist analysis has it's place in the canon of economic thought. Sajid Javid meanwhile talks about Ayn Rand as a hero - a second rate author and political nutjob with zero respect in any serious economic discussion I have ever been involved in.

But I would not claim that Javids professed admiration for Rand means that he'll be reducing the state to a shell designed only to protect the property of the wealthy. Anymore than anyone with any sense recognises that McDonnell is not actually planning to turn the UK into Communist Russia (or, of course, Venezuela).

Yes, that may well be true. But then Chavez didn't intentionally try to bankrupt Venezuala, did he? It is an inevitable consequence of wanting to spend, spend and spend.

 

[highflyer]

the vast majority would be unhappy to pay more tax

This is not true. UK public attitude surveys over the last few years have shown a majority in favour of higher tax and spend.

However, the politics of broadening the tax base becomes much easier when people trust the tax system and believe it to be progressive eg that those at the top are paying a bigger share and not avoiding tax.

There is also a significant majority support for increasing wealth taxation. At very least equalising the taxation on returns from capital and the returns from labour (at the moment the money you get from just owning stuff is taxed overall at a lower rate than the money you get from actually working which seems...odd)

 

[warmleyseagull]

The point is Tories are making Labour out to be spending insane amounts of money when it is a relatively normal budget by European standards.

Wrong - UK is slightly lower in terms of current spending as % GDP (40% vs 45%) see https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-spending-to-gdp. 5% represents about £100m extra per year, way less than any of the parties plan to spend.

UK has about average %debt to GDP overall, achieved by the recent reign back of government spending: https://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-comparison-of-the-eu-member-states.html.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is not true. UK public attitude surveys over the last few years have shown a majority in favour of higher tax and spend.

talk is cheap, no one makes voluntary contributions to HMRC. if there is serious support a party should be able to sell raising taxes for improved services. as you hint at, flat taxation should be the way forward if we want to be pragmatic about it.

re Javid, Rand is more about ethics and individualism, which probably does shape Javid's views. Marx is fundementally about economic system, so probably does shape McDonnell's views (he says so, why not accpet his word). the main place for Marx in the canon of economics is relevent to 19th centuary, we've move on considerably.

 

[LamieRobertson]

This, in a tall glass, three fingers of gin and one of Martini, with three olives. Black.

In terms of danger, though, a knock at the door at midnight, the sudden disappearance of the contents of my savings account, the termination of my contract, the shove in the back on the Jubilee line platform at Waterloo . . . I think the Boris tories have no boundaries and are seriously dangerous. Maybe not just yet, but soon. Most psychopaths don't kill anyone unless they really have to. With some of the hands now up Boris' glove puppet-like arse, with his complicity, noting some of the completely unneccessary bits of overkill and outrage he's already attempted, I see no limits to his deviance. He has to be stopped.

You could always put him on ignore

 

[highflyer]

talk is cheap, no one makes voluntary contributions to HMRC. if there is serious support a party should be able to sell raising taxes for improved services. as you hint at, flat taxation should be the way forward if we want to be pragmatic about it.

re Javid, Rand is more about ethics and individualism, which probably does shape Javid's views. Marx is fundementally about economic system, so probably does shape McDonnell's views (he says so, why not accpet his word). the main place for Marx in the canon of economics is relevent to 19th centuary, we've move on considerably.

If you think Marx has no relevance in the 21st century then you haven't been paying attention. You don't have to be a full on Marxist to find him relevant. Any more than finding Adam Smith relevant makes you a full on free market capitalist

Rand meanwhile...well if someone in a position of power is seriously claiming to be influenced by her whacko drivel and that doesn't scare you...(I think Javid may have just been saying it for effect, but I am not sure what effect he was aiming at, beyond telling us all that he has terrible taste in literature)

 

[Stat Brother]

The point is Tories are making Labour out to be spending insane amounts of money when it is a relatively normal budget by European standards.

While refusing to put a costing on their own spending.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you think Marx has no relevance in the 21st century then you haven't been paying attention. You don't have to be a full on Marxist to find him relevant. Any more than finding Adam Smith relevant makes you a full on free market capitalist

the thing is that people insist on making Marx relevant. some his theories are usful starting points, we've grown, improved our society (perhaps because of those theories). some are outright wrong, and the economic outcomes are therefore flawed. dont accept my word, see those who lived under Marxist systems, its failed so many.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You could always put him on ignore

Boris?

I know you're joshing, but.....

I ignore irrelevant irritating nobs. Dangerous people with actual power and influence, however, need to be attacked and destroyed. That means watching them. I'm watching that Boris*, and working in his disfavour, in my own very humble fashion.

*Can't think about that Boris without thinking about that Meryl. Not safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5LQvA_5NX8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knDIgBRx2dg