[Politics] The General Election Thread

[Bold Seagull]

Isnt that just a proposal from Scottish Labour?

It is, and they're up against the SNP who are left of Corbyn to be fair.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Isnt that just a proposal from Scottish Labour?

Apparently so, still Labour mind.

 

[MattBackHome]

Apparently so, still Labour mind.

So not all kids then?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Used to love the old BT adds.

 

[attila]

I think Johnson will get around 39%. If the opposition is divided as shown in this poll and people don't vote tactically he'll get in.

 

[Guinness Boy]

So not all kids then?

I bet there are some Scotch kids who are expensive to feed though. Some of them have suspiciously adult-like appetites

 

[Bakero]

Anybody see that geezer on QT on over £80k? He didn't know he was in the top 5% of earners. He didn't even think he was in the top 50%!

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=19

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[WATFORD zero]

Labour have added another one........

Free school meals for ALL kids

You really couldn’t make this up.

#whereisthemoney

Apparently you could

Isnt that just a proposal from Scottish Labour?

It is, and they're up against the SNP who are left of Corbyn to be fair.

Apparently so, still Labour mind.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Anybody see that geezer on QT on over £80k? He didn't know he was in the top 5% of earners. He didn't even think he was in the top 50%!

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=19

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

View attachment 117421

Shouty and Stupid. Well he's certainly not helping a certain stereotype

What I want to know is who would employ him on over 80K (I assume it's not in a role that requires any sort of basic Maths)

*edit* Has social media found out what he does for a living yet ?

 

[Weststander]

A lot of that is real common sense. I think a lot of people would feel the same if they stepped back and thought about things, instead of just blindly following a political party like they do their football team. I honestly think it's like that for a lot of people, that they follow Tory blue or Labour red like they would Everton Blue or Liverpool Red if they came from that city - for no logical reason other than where they were born and what their family thinks.

As an old school football fan I firmly believe you cannot and should not ever change teams but, in terms of politics, I think it's a weakness to blithely follow ideology in the face of changing circumstance and facts. We have two candidates for PM now who will both drag us back to the 1970s (a shame no one in the audience said this last night when the question was asked on QT), one with a policy of block nationalisation, union appeasment and spending that will either bankrupt the country or the taxpayer (or both) and the other that wants to return our trading position to pre 1975 and hope that we can survive on chlorinated chicken imports and the will of billionairres.

You're also spot on about bloodsports IMO.

Two minor things though. Firstly I can see Kemp Town going back to the Tories. If that's the case it returns us to the 2015 position of reading Labour / Green / Tory from West to East in the city. I don't actually think that's a bad position at all and if there was PR it would be far from unique. And Brighton is the Sussex team and NSC represents Sussex well. You have to consider that the responses on here also come from the Tory heartlands in West and Mid Sussex and the marginals of Eastbourne and Hastings.

And on NSC these days you rebuke a POINT not a person

My thoughts exactly on our local MP’s. I do think each sitting MP will win, Remain will swing it hugely for Moyles. But with the Greens/Labour/Tories each having a huge chunk of the vote in the entire city, an MP each would be notably fair representation .... local PR by accident.

 

[Weststander]

What you say about the figures is, of course, completely factually correct (not always the case on this thread ).

However, you must be aware of the millions of working people, who cannot take advantage of the way our tax system is set up and pay themselves a salary of £ 8,628 avoiding income tax completely and then taking the remaining profit of £33,511 in dividends.

As we are both aware, it's only people on PAYE (generally the less well off and particularly public sector) who actually pay the full tax on their income to support Education, NHS, Pensions and the rest of Government spending etc etc.

There are large numbers of people who set up businesses, take risks, employ staff etc, who you believe should be rewarded for that risk by paying less tax on their income than those on PAYE and I can see that argument. I set up, ran and owned a few SMEs, so understand the pressures and risks, but always took my full salary PAYE, even before the Tories cut the top rate as I thought I should contribute fully and pay tax on the income I earned. (Mug or Saint ?)

However, I accept my view maybe coloured by the industry I worked in (Tecnology), where huge numbers, particularly those earning 'significant' amounts, had set themselves up as limited companies solely for the tax benefits. (Pre and Post IR35).

From my experience, for every 'small businessmen/family' that will be out of pocket, there will be at least an equal number of individuals being taxed on the income they have avoided paying up to now, simply by using the 'advantages' of the current tax system.

Of course this all pales into insignificance when compared to multinationals tax avoidance but that's another issue.

I do understand that, but please also remember that limited company owners pay corporation tax as well, the payments made by each entity are significant. Unless they lie about costs .... I know someone who did this in a big way.

My views are based on the honest people who have several customers, a true business, with risks. We can be envious of a plumber, landscaper or one man band accountant who’s ended up doing ok, but they could and do lose it all tomorrow, 100,000’s lose their businesses each year.

I actually agree with you about those who run a limited company, but with just one ultimate engager. From my experience, earning between £300 and £900 a day. You and I know that they’re a de facto employee, it’s a tax ruse. But they’re not the instigator in any shape or form. The ultimate engager is doing it to save 13.8% in employers NIC, plus they don’t get lumbered with employment rights. The ultimate engagers include the BBC and NHS, I know people making fortunes that way.

I guess that you and I can agree that those arrangements must be once and for all obliterated?

 

[Silverhatch]

Labour have added another one........

Free school meals for ALL kids

You really couldn’t make this up.

#whereisthemoney

The money is in the pockets of CEOs and executives (and therefore shareholders) who have stoked the pay disparity between worker and executives from a ratio of 1-20 or 30 in the 70s to 1 to 200 to 300 now. Irrespective of your political view, most people - morally - should say this is excessive. When Warren Buffet says his assistant pays more tax than he does (because his earnings come from investments and shareholder dividends - not wages) then this might be a clue where Labour's cross-hairs are aimed. Unfortunately, the Conservatives cannot go anywhere near this narrative because that's their heartland and Thatcher and Reagan where the facilitators of such excess.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

[TWEET]1197786344594006016[/TWEET]

That is amazing.

We want to talk about leaving the EU, standing on our own 2 feet, and yet Labour's plan is seen as some kind of ridiculous never before seen dystopian communist vision.

But really, it's just a bit more than Germany, but well below France, the whole of Scandinavia, Italy etc...

It looks revolutionary because the reality of our spending right now is embarrassing.

Amusing that a chart lifted from an article in the Times titled Labour manifesto: Big plans don’t bear real scrutiny by the director of the IFS is being used on here to suggest Labours plan are in any way credible....

Labour is looking to increase public spending by more than £130 billion a year. That’s on a base of about £810 billion. This would increase public spending by about six percentage points of national income. It would take the share spent by government to levels not sustained in peacetime.

These numbers ignore the costs of nationalising water, energy, rail, mail and BT Openreach. They also ignore the long-term consequences of a particularly imprudent pledge: that state pension ages will not rise beyond 66. That would mean spending on state pensions rising by more than £60 billion a year by the 2050s relative to today.

Of that £130 billion of extra spending, £55 billion is earmarked for capital investment. That would double investment spending. There is a strong case for more investment spending, but increases on this scale probably couldn’t be achieved in an effective and efficient manner over a parliament. Labour would be content to borrow the additional £55 billion a year required to fund its spending, and would hence be comfortable with public sector debt rising over time. But it has said it wants to raise taxes by £80 billion a year.

That too is a vast increase, and it would take our tax burden to its highest level in history. About half of that £80 billion increase would supposedly come from increases in corporation tax. That would take our corporation tax revenue from about the OECD average to among the very highest, and right to the top of the G7 league table.

The claim that the scale of public spending that Labour desires can be financed entirely by taxing companies and “the rich” does not stand up to scrutiny. Corporation tax is in the end paid by people — increasing it would mean higher prices, lower wages, or less valuable pensions and savings. If you really want to raise an extra £80 billion you are almost certainly going to have to raise broad-based taxes, which directly affect large numbers of people.....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-manifesto-big-plans-dont-bear-real-scrutiny-g9cg7ncxx

..... amazing indeed.

 

[theonlymikey]

Amusing that a chart lifted from an article in the Times titled Labour manifesto: Big plans don’t bear real scrutiny by the director of the IFS is being used on here to suggest Labours plan are in any way credible....

Labour is looking to increase public spending by more than £130 billion a year. That’s on a base of about £810 billion. This would increase public spending by about six percentage points of national income. It would take the share spent by government to levels not sustained in peacetime.

These numbers ignore the costs of nationalising water, energy, rail, mail and BT Openreach. They also ignore the long-term consequences of a particularly imprudent pledge: that state pension ages will not rise beyond 66. That would mean spending on state pensions rising by more than £60 billion a year by the 2050s relative to today.

Of that £130 billion of extra spending, £55 billion is earmarked for capital investment. That would double investment spending. There is a strong case for more investment spending, but increases on this scale probably couldn’t be achieved in an effective and efficient manner over a parliament. Labour would be content to borrow the additional £55 billion a year required to fund its spending, and would hence be comfortable with public sector debt rising over time. But it has said it wants to raise taxes by £80 billion a year.

That too is a vast increase, and it would take our tax burden to its highest level in history. About half of that £80 billion increase would supposedly come from increases in corporation tax. That would take our corporation tax revenue from about the OECD average to among the very highest, and right to the top of the G7 league table.

The claim that the scale of public spending that Labour desires can be financed entirely by taxing companies and “the rich” does not stand up to scrutiny. Corporation tax is in the end paid by people — increasing it would mean higher prices, lower wages, or less valuable pensions and savings. If you really want to raise an extra £80 billion you are almost certainly going to have to raise broad-based taxes, which directly affect large numbers of people.....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-manifesto-big-plans-dont-bear-real-scrutiny-g9cg7ncxx

..... amazing indeed.

"How will Labour raise the other £1.1Trn" some schmuck somewhere who believed Saj Javid lies - 2019.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

"How will Labour raise the other £1.1Trn" some schmuck somewhere who believed Saj Javid lies - 2019.

The 1983 Labour manifesto was called 'the longest suicide note in history' I'm beginning to wonder if the 2019 one will end up being known as the most expensive suicide note in history ...

 

[theonlymikey]

The 1983 Labour manifesto was called 'the longest suicide note in history' I'm beginning to wonder if the 2019 one will end up being known as the most expensive suicide note in history ...

It's widely reported the country didn't have the cash for the NHS.

 

[Weststander]

The money is in the pockets of CEOs and executives (and therefore shareholders) who have stoked the pay disparity between worker and executives from a ratio of 1-20 or 30 in the 70s to 1 to 200 to 300 now. Irrespective of your political view, most people - morally - should say this is excessive. When Warren Buffet says his assistant pays more tax than he does (because his earnings come from investments and shareholder dividends - not wages) then this might be a clue where Labour's cross-hairs are aimed. Unfortunately, the Conservatives cannot go anywhere near this narrative because that's their heartland and Thatcher and Reagan where the facilitators of such excess.

Totally agree with you. But that growing chasm happened under the watch of Blair, Brown and Darling too.

The Chairmen, CEO’s and Executives of many plc’s receive earnings way out of proportion compared to some of their european competitors. Institutional shareholders dominate the voting in of these ever growing packages, dissenting small shareholders are blown out of the water. Something has to change.

I’m referring to hired directors.

But for true entrepreneurs who had the idea and turned nothing into something eg Jobs, Gates, Buffett, Dyson, Peter Jones, even our own Tony Bloom, imho they do deserve the fruits of their unique skills and work. Subject to looking after their staff well.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Well if the conversation I overheard in Crazy Jake's discount store in Crook this morning is anything to go by, people are not convinced with JC's tax the rich policies. The gist of it was "he won't raise anything like that much and we will end up paying for it again". There was some slightly more colourful language employed which I won't repeat.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Amusing that a chart lifted from an article in the Times titled Labour manifesto: Big plans don’t bear real scrutiny by the director of the IFS is being used on here to suggest Labours plan are in any way credible....

Labour is looking to increase public spending by more than £130 billion a year. That’s on a base of about £810 billion. This would increase public spending by about six percentage points of national income. It would take the share spent by government to levels not sustained in peacetime.

These numbers ignore the costs of nationalising water, energy, rail, mail and BT Openreach. They also ignore the long-term consequences of a particularly imprudent pledge: that state pension ages will not rise beyond 66. That would mean spending on state pensions rising by more than £60 billion a year by the 2050s relative to today.

Of that £130 billion of extra spending, £55 billion is earmarked for capital investment. That would double investment spending. There is a strong case for more investment spending, but increases on this scale probably couldn’t be achieved in an effective and efficient manner over a parliament. Labour would be content to borrow the additional £55 billion a year required to fund its spending, and would hence be comfortable with public sector debt rising over time. But it has said it wants to raise taxes by £80 billion a year.

That too is a vast increase, and it would take our tax burden to its highest level in history. About half of that £80 billion increase would supposedly come from increases in corporation tax. That would take our corporation tax revenue from about the OECD average to among the very highest, and right to the top of the G7 league table.

The claim that the scale of public spending that Labour desires can be financed entirely by taxing companies and “the rich” does not stand up to scrutiny. Corporation tax is in the end paid by people — increasing it would mean higher prices, lower wages, or less valuable pensions and savings. If you really want to raise an extra £80 billion you are almost certainly going to have to raise broad-based taxes, which directly affect large numbers of people.....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-manifesto-big-plans-dont-bear-real-scrutiny-g9cg7ncxx



..... amazing indeed.

You've spent the last 3 years deriding the IFS and their Brexit forecasts, and now you're quoting them. Brilliant, truly brilliant.

 

[Simster]

Used to love the old BT adds.

Maureen Lipman and her other half are a very good friend of my Dad and step mum. Nice lady by all accounts, but everybody avoids her when it comes to politics because she is absolutely HEAD MENTAL. Don't ever start her on Israel, but it seems she's gone doolally here too.