[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

ulysse - Member

Does anybody else think Diane Abbott might be actually ill?
Just look at her performance pre election on political talk shows, she's normally sharper than at present?

Been thinking this also. I seem to remember she had a migraine during the A50 vote?

Imo, it's no coincidence there was a terrorist attack, days before the G.E. and therefore Labour appearing not to understand the strategic significance of this, or that Labour do understand this and seek to gain by it, is quite disturbing, imo.

This is the funniest thing I've read on here on a long time. Just so I can understand, are you suggesting that the terrorists would want labour to win so the labour party should effectively concede defeat out of patriotic duty?

[I]aracer - Member

Because the Tories weren't trying to make any political capital out of it at all.[/I]
[I]
Of course IF it was intended to influence people voting it would seem likely the intention was to get people to vote for the party more traditionally associated with law and order. It's hardly Labour's fault that the Maybot personally presided over a huge cut in police numbers.
[/I]

I believe the initial responses from all, included praise for the emergency services.
Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

Many believe the Madrid bombings in 2004 did effect the outcome of the Spanish election three days later. Might it be possible terrorists are now trying to create a similar reaction in the UK.

Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

No, it was followed by Theresa May setting out what she wanted to do in the next Parliament. If that's not campaigning, I don't know what is.

All that sounds entirely plausible to me

[img] [/img]

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

cite? because Ive seen the opposite

. Might it be possible terrorists are now trying to create a similar reaction in the UK.

possible creating 'terror' at this time of uncertainty; post brexit, no plan, government uturning on general election, things are already very unstable ,

however more to do with ISIS calling for attacks during ramadan id have thought

Solo - people generally head right when terrorists strike so presumably you think folk should, in the aftermath of the terrorists attacks, resist any sudden urge to vote for a right wing party?

That was what you meant, no?

😆 Yeah, my bad. I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.

Carry on.
🙂

Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

Didn't the police themselves come on and say that they couldn't do their job properly because they didn't have enough resources?

I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.

Solo,

igm asked you a sensible question (albeit one wrapped in gentle rhetoric, which I think fair if not charitable). So maybe offer an honest answer, rather than a deflection?

Solo - Member

Then followed in knee-jerk reaction stylee, by comments from Labour attempting to create a tenuous link between cuts to police numbers and the attack at the weekend.

Policing numbers have been an issue for ages.
Been mentioned hundreds of times on here in connection with many subjects.
And increasing numbers was Labour policy pre the recent atrocities.

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

We still need more police officers.
It's not just about the response to one incident.

Might it be possible terrorists are now trying to create a similar reaction in the UK.

Really?
Can you give me any reasons why they'd want to replace a government which cuts police numbers with one that wishes to increase them?

Solo - Member

Yeah, my bad. I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.

Carry on.

As predicted Johnson repeating the exact same lies about Corbyn on shoot to kill in his latest interview, despite being factchecked on it on R4 this morning 🙄

However, I believe the Police have been quite clear that more officers wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome on the weekend.

Solo - Member
Yeah, my bad. I seem to have forgotten this is a sensible-conversation-free-zone.
Carry on.

Seeing as he actually typed the words 'Yeah, my bad.' to begin his post, I think we know how seriously we should take his opinions from now on.....

You could argue the opposite. If Labour had reigned in spending back in 2007/8 then cuts to Police numbers might have been less necessary later.

Yes, because Labour clearly caused the whole financial crash.

That aside, the cuts were still not necessary as the cuts to disabled benefits were not necessary, as the tax breaks to the rich were not necessary. These were choices made by the Tory government and the choice to cut police has not worked out too well for them.

And increasing numbers was Labour policy

Labour's policy is to spend more on everything, and if you prioritize everything they you prioritize nothing. More police is just an empty promise from a party that wrote a giveaway manifesto at a time it thought it couldn't win and could therefore promise the moon on a stick withouth getting caught out.

In government they won't be able to afford 20k policemen any more than they can afford to buy all the ROSCOs.

Solo,

igm asked you a sensible question (albeit one wrapped in gentle rhetoric, which I think fair if not charitable). So maybe offer an honest answer, [b]rather than a deflection[/b]?

But isn't that what any good Toryboy does? deflect the answer and wobble on rehearsed rhetoric?

Does the the Conservative party represent rank incompetence, or opportunistic theft at the expense of society in general, hang the consequences to the poor and infirm, the devil take the hindmost?

Yes, because Labour clearly caused the whole financial crash.

How so?

Joshua Chambers 2010 nterview for civil service life with Lord Turnbull, former head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary for Blair from 2002-2005:

[i]Speaking last month, the retired civil service chief said it was too difficult for civil servants to call for public spending to be reigned in until after the financial crisis hit.

The former cabinet secretary said that the Treasury was prone to “wishful thinking” and that “the politics” of the time had prevented civil servants from speaking more openly about the increasing level of debt.

He suggested that spending was too high because of “optimism bias” in the growth forecasts: “It was a forecast error, but also by a process of optimism bias, not enough people were saying: ‘Come on, do you really think we are able to expect 2.75 per cent growth indefinitely?’”

Questioned on whether he thinks civil servants should have come forward, Turnbull – who was permanent secretary at the Treasury from 1998 to 2002 – suggested that they were scared to. “Yes, maybe Whitehall should have,” he said. “But it’s quite difficult when your minister is proclaiming that we have transformed the propects of the UK economy.”

When asked directly what prevented civil servants from telling politicians that borrowing was too high, he said: “The politics was that we had put an end to boom and bust.”

Turnbull added: “We had a sense of overconfidence; it happened all around the world, but it was a rather extreme form of it in the UK.”

The problem, he argued, demonstrates a need for an organisation such as the Office of Budget Responsibility, which has been set up by the coalition government. “Having someone outside the process is helpful,” he said. “I think the OBR is something which is necessary, providing some degree of external constraint less prone to wishful thinking.”

Turnbull said that that excessive borrowing started to be a problem from 2005. “It kind of crept up on us in 2005, 2006, 2007, and we were still expanding public spending at 4.5 percent a year,” he said, arguing that the Treasury should have been putting more money aside. “You might have thought that we should have been giving priority to getting borrowing under better control, putting money aside in the good years – and it didn’t happen,” he commented.

Turnbull said that “there were some other places that had begun to accumulate surpluses for a rainy day; places like Australia.”

While Turnbull argued that the primary reason Britain is “in the mess that we’re in” is because “public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy, by error” he added that a loss of output caused by the financial crisis has also contributed to the budget deficit.[/i]

More police officers, more income tax take, greater fiscal multiplication, no?
More teachers
More firemen

In government they won't be able to afford 20k policemen any more than they can afford to buy all the ROSCOs.

[img] [/img]

Can you give me any reasons why they'd want to replace a government which cuts police numbers with one that wishes to increase them?

Maybe they thought that the bombing would have the opposite affect?

I think it's more likely that these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with influencing the election result.

I agree OOB.
I just can't see it.

Labour's policy is to spend more on everything, and if you prioritize everything they you prioritize nothing. More police is just an empty promise from a party that wrote a giveaway manifesto at a time it thought it couldn't win and could therefore promise the moon on a stick withouth getting caught out.

The spending is clearly laid out so why do you think they are empty promises?

You may not like what they are trying to do but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

If only Corbyn dumped Abbot, I just can't see her as part of the government.

Duplicate post.

I think it's more likely that these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with influencing the election result.

My thoughts exactly. I think we are over estimating the bombers though processes if we think they are doing that. Even if they had the ability to think about it, why would they care which government was in power?

So you think people like Diane Abbott are good then? Or Corbyn's performance on Womens hour?

I think your bias means you can't see the faults on all sides.

Not seeing the wood for the trees.

You can't reflect on a whole campaign just because of the amplified noise of the media in a couple of instances of verbal diarrhoea.

The spending is clearly laid out so why do you think they are empty promises?

Because it assumes corporation tax revenue and income tax revenue is inelastic. Also they're not even pretending to be able to fund the numberous privatizations. Also there won't be parliamentary time for the vast amount of significant changes. PLus there won't be much spare civil service time around brexit.

You may not like what they are trying to do but that doesn't mean they can't do it.

Exactly the wrong way round for me. I *love* the idea of a tiny minority paying for loads of good stuff for the other 95pc of us. What's not to like? I'd get £1400 PCM in childcare alone! My issue is I don't think it's possible. If it was that easy all governments would do it. And they don't.

If it was that easy all governments would do it. And they don't.

You assume that all governments wish to treat all their citizens in a reasonable manner.

The Tories do not.

They have no interest whatsoever in helping the most vulnerable, instead they are used as scapegoats.

It's much easier to blame people than help them.
And much simpler to appeal to the worst aspects of human nature than the best.

for just5mins to try and pull him out of his parallel universe

Just to be clear - I agree with the comments made on the papers.

I was actually speaking to the behaviour of us as voters / individuals though. If our first response is to abuse candidates from parties we don't support, or abuse those who support them this is completely self defeating and makes things worse - it also emboldens politicians who think the same behaviour is ok.

Wouldn't it be better if we respected all candidates for having the courage to put themselves forward, listened to their policies and then did a bit of thinking for ourselves? We've had some terrific orators from all the mainstream parties and even if we disagree we should at least listen to them first.

That's all I'm saying.

[quote=outofbreath ]Also there won't be parliamentary time for the vast amount of significant changes.

It appears there's spare time for a debate on fox hunting.

Have you given the same level of scrutiny to the Tories plans? Oh, that's right, they haven't bothered costing anything.

The thing is, the Labour spending plans might not be possible, the chances are they will have to scale back on some of their promises, but I much prefer the direction they intend to take. Given I don't have a bias against them I don't feel the need to quibble on every detail (whilst letting the Tories get away with far worse). Sure corporation tax and income tax might not be totally inelastic, but they're probably a lot less inelastic than the Tory cheerleaders are suggesting - as has been pointed out, 26% is hardly a particularly high rate, even Maggie seemed happy with that.

I *love* the idea of a tiny minority paying for loads of good stuff for the other 95pc of us. What's not to like? I'd get £1400 PCM in childcare alone! My issue is I don't think it's possible. If it was that easy all governments would do it.

Some do. Ok it's not the tiny minority paying, it's a sliding scale. Sweden gives out free childcare. That one policy alone has a MASSIVE positive effect on society, I reckon.

We've had some terrific orators from all the mainstream parties and even if we disagree we should at least listen to them first.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm done listening to and engaging with murderous greed ridden liars and their enablers.

Left wing missives on here and elsewhere will never change their nature nor voting habits. Only personal epiphany has the possibility of that

Aspects of Swedish healthcare good too. You can't just pick isolated aspects of a system and plonk them elsewhere though.

Key is how the whole system/package interacts too.

At moment neither labour or conservative plans seem entirely sensible and predicting what will happen economy wise post brexit or what that will be seems a lottery

Wouldn't it be better if we respected all candidates for having the courage to put themselves forward, listened to their policies and then did a bit of thinking for ourselves? We've had some terrific orators from all the mainstream parties and even if we disagree we should at least listen to them first.

Sweden gives out free childcare. That one policy alone has a MASSIVE positive effect on society, I reckon.

It is seen as one way of keeping the birthrate up and to avoid an ageing society.

I haven't usually got a lot of time for shouty youtube rants, but I think chunky mark has hit his stride with this one:

At moment neither labour or conservative plans seem entirely sensible and predicting what will happen economy wise post brexit or what that will be seems a lottery

Economics is a lottery. Over 100 economics professionals, professors and so on back Corybns plans and say it will create a positive change
Another 100 economists will say his plans suck.

No governments plans fully work, none are executed to 100% completion.
The decision people need to make is would they prefer 50% of Labour plans and intentions or would they prefer 50% of Conservatives plans and intentions.

PLus there won't be much spare civil service time around brexit.

Incidentally I think Thornberry gave away some secrets on women's hour with regard to Labour's view of Brexit.

She started in by saying we had to have a Brexit that worked for everyone. So to address the 52 we had to leave the EU and that there were many ways of doing that. But we also had to leave in a way that didn't alienate the 48. It was very interesting the way she put it. And she was majoring on Keir and her being senior amongst the negotiating team.

'Twas interesting.

Several from the right are exceptional at lying. They have moved straight to personal attacks, they preset no policy, they have stood behind nothing but slogans and refuse to elaborate on any policy. T

this x 100

Johnson has just repeated the [b]exact same lie[/b] about corbyn he was pulled up on R4 this morning about, at his latest press conference

[quote=ulysse ]Left wing missives on here and elsewhere will never change their nature nor voting habits. Only personal epiphany has the possibility of that

Personal case study. Check out my recent posts on here and other politics threads - though it's only very recently I've started to make it clear exactly which way I'm now leaning. Go back even 5 years and check what I was posting. Maybe it has been a personal epiphany, but I reckon you lot on here have been a significant influence. OK so I was never as hardcore a righty as some on here and elsewhere - TBH I was probably one of those whose views didn't reconcile that well with my voting habits, which I then attempted to justify.

Can an mp lie with impunity or is there some sort of mp cop who can pull them up?
Maybe at the beginning of any Boris interview the announcer should say that the comments Boris is about to make about corbyn is a lie.

[quote=igm ]But we also had to leave in a way that didn't alienate the 48.

To even consider the views of the 48 is quite a differentiator. I'm feeling fairly confident what Brexit means for Labour and it's certainly something I can live with. Though as unlikely as the Tories not winning a majority seems, a Labour majority seems far less likely - if they do form a government they're going to have to compromise with some parties who don't want Brexit at all...

some in-depth analysis of the polls here

summary: shy torries will save Maybot and defy the polls

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/

To sum things up, I’d give the same advice that I pretty much always do on the eve of an election. Focus on the polling average — Conservatives ahead by 7 points — rather than only the polls you like. But assume there’s a wide range of outcomes and that the errors are equally likely to come in either direction. Given the poor historical accuracy of U.K. polls, in fact, the true margin of error7 on the Labour-Conservative margin is plus or minus 10 points. That would imply that anything from a 17-point Conservative win to a 3-point Labour win is possible. And even an average polling error would make the difference between May expanding her majority and losing it.

Maybe at the beginning of any Boris interview the announcer should say that the comments Boris is about to make about corbyn is a lie.

To which Boris will reply 'Careful sunshine, or we abolish the licence fee'.

Even Thatcher recognised the value of an impartial state broadcaster.
New Tories actively wish to suppress any kind of dissent.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-sure-workmates-will-vote-labour-after-saying-theyre-scum-otherwise-20170606128892

🙂

CaptainFlashheart - Member
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/man-sure-workmates-will-vote-labour-after-saying-theyre-scum-otherwise-20170606128892

you see shy toryism is now a meme

To which Boris will reply 'Careful sunshine, or we abolish the licence fee'.

Guess the content of the angry letter i fired off to the BBC this morning , as to why i'll be cancelling my licence fee and disabling live broadcast equipment here...

I can think of a way to free up more time.

Me too, but don't hold your breath because the one single Bennite policy Labour *will* be able to deliver is Brexit.

You assume that all governments wish to treat all their citizens in a reasonable manner.

No, but I assume they all want to get elected, and regardless of party that always involves spending.

Have you given the same level of scrutiny to the Tories plans?

I see no reason not to. If you provide some examples of extravagant Tory promises I'll check them out. They've promised to fix Social Care and I can see how that's feasable. When Cameron promised 13.7bn at the last minute in 2015 I called that out. (Linky above.)

Sure corporation tax and income tax might not be totally inelastic

Best to avoid making promises as if they were.

26% is hardly a particularly high rate, even Maggie seemed happy with that.

26pc 30 years ago was fine. In recent years everyone's dropped their rates. We dropped ours to 19pc (IIRC) at the same time Spain, Japan and numerous other nations did. (Well, we rather cleverly announced it and then left it 1 year to cream off a bit more revenue on the assumption that nobody would bother to relocate to save themselves 1 year's worth of 7pc) All those countries didn't do that for a laugh, they did it because they felt they had to to compete. FWIW I find it someone staggering that people think 26pc is the sweet spot on the graph in 2017 because it was the sweet spot on the graph 30 years ago. Is that really Labour's logic?

some in-depth analysis of the polls here

The thing is though - pollsters also know all those things. So they should have taken them into account. Shy Tory syndrome has been known about for years and is in most of the poll adjustments afaik.

The thing is though - pollsters also know all those things. So they should have taken them into account. Shy Tory syndrome has been known about for years and is in most of the poll adjustments afaik.

IIRC the yougov poll tries to account for it, the others don't try to.

The yougov model also models seats which the others don't do, I think.

The yougov model also models seats which the others don't do, I think.

Yes, but the yougov admits the seat modelling is pretty much fiction.

They've promised to fix Social Care and I can see how that's feasable

Okay - how is it feasible, what calculations have you done?

What is the total amount required to fix social care?
What is the top cap for the dementia tax that is funding it and does that add up?
What do they mean exactly by fixing it?

What do they mean exactly by fixing it?

Why, euthenasia, silly!
It's the tory way!

http://calumslist.org/

We know of these 60 people from their friends and/or family contacting this website. The UK figure is nearer 4,000 but could be as high as 81,140 welfare reform deaths

Okay - how is it feasible, what calculations have you done?

What is the total amount required to fix social care?
What is the top cap for the dementia tax that is funding it and does that add up?
What do they mean exactly by fixing it?

Dunno.
Dunno.
Funding it properly.

As I see it the flaw is that it's really easy to avoid. The risk is that vast numbers of people just avoid it. So it could fall flat on it's face.

My guess is that won't happen, because what I've seen in my own family is people just assume they'll live healthily forever. My parents inhereted nothing because their parents needed residential care and in spite of being well aware of the situation they're not showing any signs of planning ahead for the time they need residential care. I'd expect social care at home to be the same, for whatever reason people just don't plan to avoid it.

...but even so, I trust this scheme more than I trust Labours "We'll fix it along with everything else and you won't have to pay."

In fact, AFAIC the Tory plan for social care is the single best policy in this whole election.

[quote=outofbreath ]26pc 30 years ago was fine. In recent years everyone's dropped their rates.

Remind me again how low Germany and France have dropped their rates?

In fact, AFAIC the Tory plan for social care is the single best policy in this whole election.

In fact, AFAIC the Tory plan for social care is the single best policy in this whole election.

I almost agree

but mays u-turn and cap is stupid- it makes it horribly regressive doesnt it?

those with assets above her cap (ie the richest) will have their assets above it protected, meaning they could some could save millions

those with less than the cap see their inheritance taken away, so the poorest could loose everything theyve worked for their entire lives

[img] [/img]
[url= http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/why-corporations-will-just-run-away-is.html ]Sauce[/url]

Remind me again how low Germany and France have dropped their rates?

Germany's high. No idea about France. Are you saying the countries who have rates below Germany have miscalculated? How so? If so, why didn't they all just pop them back up when they realized they could squeeze a bit more out?

outofbreath » 26pc 30 years ago was fine. In recent years everyone's dropped their rates.

ulysse - I personally know one medium sized UK firm that moved HQ specifically for a lower corporation tax rate. All that was required was moving 3 full time posts to the new country and to hold board meetings in that country.

Are you saying that was a one off?

Are you saying that graph proves Corporation tax revenue is prefectly-inelastic?

I personally know one medium sized UK firm that moved HQ specifically for a lower corporation tax rate

[quote=outofbreath ]Are you saying the countries who have rates below Germany have miscalculated?

I don't think that was what I was saying - why don't we check back in the thread and see who was suggesting our corporation tax rates should be influenced by what other countries are doing...

How so? If so, why didn't they all just pop them back up when they realized they could squeeze a bit more out?

The tories are not dropping corporate tax rates to maximise tax take, but to maximise the take for a small percentage of the population.

ulysse - I personally know one medium sized UK firm that moved HQ specifically for a lower corporation tax rate. All that was required was moving 3 full time posts to the new country and to hold board meetings in that country.

Are you saying that was a one off?

Are you saying that graph proves Corporation tax revenue is prefectly-inelastic?

What we need there is international co-operation on preventing companies pretending to be based in a different country for tax reasons, just cutting taxes because of dishonest abuse of tax systems is like legalising murder because it is complicated to investigate.

Who is everyone

Everyone was a bit of ill considered hyperbole on my part but Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, reckon average rates in the G20 have fallen from 40 per cent in 1990 to 28.7 per cent in 2015. By 2020 they'll be 27.1 per cent.

IIRC we cut ours at the same time as Spain, Japan, Italy and a few others to the smae rate as them (19pc IIRC). (Announced and then enacted after a year in the UK but immediately elsewhere.)

...but if you're arguing corporation tax is inelastic, why stop at 26pc? What's wrong with 90pc.

Where did they go?

I thought Belgium, but I think I was getting Luxembourg and Belgium mixed up, 'cos moving to Belgium for tax reason seems a bit mental.

What we need there is international co-operation on preventing companies pretending to be based in a different country for tax reasons,

That would make sense.

What doesn't make sense is pricing yourself out of the market *before* that co-operation is in place.

The Maybot is being interviewed right now on Sky news in a barn full of tractors. She really does pick her backdrops. It's like she's conducting her campaign from a load of unidentifiable secret locations as if she was on the run. Really doesn't look very good.

Is she looking tired?

[quote=outofbreath ]average rates in the G20 have fallen from 40 per cent in 1990 to 28.7 per cent in 2015. By 2020 they'll be 27.1 per cent.

Gosh - in that context 26% does look a bad idea.

...but if you're arguing corporation tax is inelastic, why stop at 26pc? What's wrong with 90pc.

I wasn't. HTH.

The tories are not dropping corporate tax rates to maximise tax take

Cite.

but to maximise the take for a small percentage of the population.

Corporation tax comes out of the money firms take in from customers. Just like VAT. It may look like the company is paying it, but the cash comes direct from the stuff they sell which is paid for by everyone. ...and companies that sell food aren't exempt from Corporation tax, in the way that food transactions are exempt.

The tories are not dropping corporate tax rates to maximise tax take, but to maximise the take for a small percentage of the population.

What was Spain's motive? What was Japan's motive? What was Italy's motive? What was Luxenbourg's motive?