General Election, June 8th

[Jon the Hat]

21 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If Amazon put their prices up then consumers move to the next company offering cheap goods. The idea of the market so beloved by the right is survival of the fittest. 

Lunacy? Come on Jon, you might not agree with it but it's hardly lunacy. Most of the Labour policies are commonplace elsewhere in the world. 

There are already cheaper ways to buy things, Amazon have great systems, excellent delivery, most people would pay a few pence more without switching.  They have built loyalty.

Corbyn says all kind of nonsense.  Nuclear free world!  The top 5% can afford everything we think of!  Companies will just pay much higher taxes without any impact on the economy!

[Darkon84]

I'm probably not going to bother with debate tonight, I'll probably watch the rugby instead but part of me has an image in my head and hopes that May just turns up unannounced like

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There are already cheaper ways to buy things, Amazon have great systems, excellent delivery, most people would pay a few pence more without switching.  They have built loyalty.

Corbyn says all kind of nonsense.  Nuclear free world!  The top 5% can afford everything we think of!  Companies will just pay much higher taxes without any impact on the economy!

Nonsense you say?

 

Nuclear free world - all but a small number of countries don't have nuclear weapons. Only the UK, France and Russia in Europe do. How is wanting a nuclear free world a bad thing? It is surely far, far worse to just accept the bad things in the world without hoping for, and trying for, change?

 

Top 5% can afford everything - it's 5% on earning over £80k. You need some perspective. The point of taxing the better off more is that there is inherent unfairness in earnings. The rich don't work harder, they're just much luckier. Only a small % can get jobs at that level and it isn't based entirely on ability is it? It's right place, right time, ability yes but also who you know etc. 

 

Impact on companies - Corporation tax was 28% in 2010. Labour want to put it up to 26%. 

 

Sorry but we're just getting the same nonsense spouted over and over by you and your fellow right wingers. It's just rhetorical rubbish spouted based on right wing ideology rather than because there's any evidence to support you. 

[ramboacdc]

may is trying to play the same card cameron did of "i answered his questions during PMQ's. i would rather answer questions from the people."

 

Difference is Cameron then did. She is then going to events and taking questions from journalists. 

 

her spin doctors are seriously out of date if they are telling her not to go for this. 

[Rincewind]

37 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He is quite a good talker actually I think, certainly a lot more so that May.  Unfortunately what he says is lunacy.

And the avoiding the question is why people especially young new voters have become fed up with politicians and disinterested in politics for quite a few years. Whatever you think of him Corbyn is a straight talker and says what he feels and means it. He has said the sign of a good leader is not to shout and bawl but to listen and he has done. He understands why people were disalusioned and wants to change it. Even as a lifelong skeptic regarding politics and politicians can see that. A politician that actually listens is rare these days and I welcome it even if it is with a degree of skeptism.

As for May she does not even sound sincere. She uses politicians speak. I did hear there was a speech writer who has written for Labour and Tory Leaders. They tailor it to suit the party.

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Nonsense you say?

 

Nuclear free world - all but a small number of countries don't have nuclear weapons. Only the UK, France and Russia in Europe do. How is wanting a nuclear free world a bad thing? It is surely far, far worse to just accept the bad things in the world without hoping for, and trying for, change?

 

Top 5% can afford everything - it's 5% on earning over £80k. You need some perspective. The point of taxing the better off more is that there is inherent unfairness in earnings. The rich don't work harder, they're just much luckier. Only a small % can get jobs at that level and it isn't based entirely on ability is it? It's right place, right time, ability yes but also who you know etc. 

 

Impact on companies - Corporation tax was 28% in 2010. Labour want to put it up to 26%. 

 

Sorry but we're just getting the same nonsense spouted over and over by you and your fellow right wingers. It's just rhetorical rubbish spouted based on right wing ideology rather than because there's any evidence to support you. 

You clearly think £80k is a lot of money, it really isn't in London and surrounding areas.  Plenty of people I know are in that bracket, and we are not rich by any means, plenty struggling to buy homes and raise a family.

 

So tell me, since the corporation tax rate dropped from 26% to 20%, what has happened to tax receipts?  Hmm?  Oh they went up did they?  It's almost like lower corporation tax accompanied by targeted tax on banks, tackling evasion and reducing avoidance combines to encourage business to improve it's profits, invest in growth and eventually pay more taxes!!  The economy picked up too of course, must have all happened by itself I expect.

[breadandcheese]

The notion that Corbyn is trying to put corporation tax back towards 2010 rates isn't entirely genuine. 

 

Corporation tax was 21% up to £300,000 in 2010 for small business rates. Corbyn has not suggested going back to this system. So small businesses will be paying more than ever under him.  He can't offer the concession of a small business profits rate because he can't afford to based on his spending plans.

 

Seeing as we're a nation of small businesses, with the average sized company employing 4 people, I'd imagine that a lot of businesses will suffer and tax receipts will go down. 

[Innovindil]

"The rich don't work harder, they're just much luckier. " 

 

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've heard in my lifetime. 

 

Potentially accurate for a portion of "rich" people, but not everyone is born into riches, plenty have put in the effort needed to get the pay they're on. 

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You clearly think £80k is a lot of money, it really isn't in London and surrounding areas.  Plenty of people I know are in that bracket, and we are not rich by any means, plenty struggling to buy homes and raise a family.

 

So tell me, since the corporation tax rate dropped from 26% to 20%, what has happened to tax receipts?  Hmm?  Oh they went up did they?  It's almost like lower corporation tax accompanied by targeted tax on banks, tackling evasion and reducing avoidance combines to encourage business to improve it's profits, invest in growth and eventually pay more taxes!!  The economy picked up too of course, must have all happened by itself I expect.

But it isn't a simple as that is it?

Firstly you can't link the economy 'picking up' - if you can call an economy where wages are falling 'picking up' - to corporation tax. Secondly there are all sorts of variables affecting tax take, yes including the rate.

Profits have increased - in particular in areas like banking - so receipts are up. They would have been further up with a higher rate. 

This year's figures have been massaged by the government changing the date where corporation tax receipts appear in the figures. 

The banking sector in particular has seen growth which has fed into increased payments.

At the same time, rate cuts do have the potential for some good knock on effects increasing take also, it's true. This is not down to companies choosing whether to pay or not, though, which is your argument. The Treasury considers that rate cuts may allow increased profits to feed into higher wages and greater consumption. We haven't seen higher wages (the idea of a virtuous circle being propagated by a Tory-led treasury), though, so this argument appears highly flawed. 

 

I do realise that £80k in London is very different to £80k everywhere else. London does have far more spent on it per capita than anywhere else though. Removing some money from the local economy might also force some sort of slowdown upon the capital although I'l admit this might be somewhat wishful thinking. The reality is, though, that if you are earning £80 or just over the extra 5% will either not touch you or touch you minimally. It's effects will obviously be greater the more people earn. Over the last few years we have seen the tax threshold increase so that no tax is paid on more income so the net effect of the two changes is likely to mean that you'd need to earn several thousand pounds over £80k to be worse off that you would have been previously. 

 

The reality is that the national average wage is £26k-ish. Nobody forces anybody to live or work in London and if they own property there they have gained substantially in terms of capital wealth. 

 

[matty98]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

The notion that Corbyn is trying to put corporation tax back towards 2010 rates isn't entirely genuine. 

 

Corporation tax was 21% up to £300,000 in 2010 for small business rates. Corbyn has not suggested going back to this system. So small businesses will be paying more than ever under him.  He can't offer the concession of a small business profits rate because he can't afford to based on his spending plans.

 

Seeing as we're a nation of small businesses, with the average sized company employing 4 people, I'd imagine that a lot of businesses will suffer and tax receipts will go down. 

In the manifesto it states "We will protect small businesses by reintroducing the lower small profits rate of corporation tax. We will also exclude small businesses from costly plans to introduce quarterly reporting and take action on late payments."

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

"The rich don't work harder, they're just much luckier. " 

 

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've heard in my lifetime. 

 

Potentially accurate for a portion of "rich" people, but not everyone is born into riches, plenty have put in the effort needed to get the pay they're on. 

 

 

It was a huge generalisation, of course. My point is just that people at all level work really hard to get where they are but that cannot be reflected in pay as only a small proportion of jobs exist at high levels. I'm not saying the wealthy haven't worked hard to get there, I'm simply saying that plenty of people work just as hard but don't get the same roll of the dice, or don't meet somebody or see an advert at the right time. Luck clearly is part of the equation. 

[Webbo]

22 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

And the avoiding the question is why people especially young new voters have become fed up with politicians and disinterested in politics for quite a few years. Whatever you think of him Corbyn is a straight talker and says what he feels and means it. He has said the sign of a good leader is not to shout and bawl but to listen and he has done. He understands why people were disalusioned and wants to change it. Even as a lifelong skeptic regarding politics and politicians can see that. A politician that actually listens is rare these days and I welcome it even if it is with a degree of skeptism.

As for May she does not even sound sincere. She uses politicians speak. I did hear there was a speech writer who has written for Labour and Tory Leaders. They tailor it to suit the party.

If he's a straight talking why won't he admit he supported the IRA?

[breadandcheese]

10 minutes ago, matty98 said:

In the manifesto it states "We will protect small businesses by reintroducing the lower small profits rate of corporation tax. We will also exclude small businesses from costly plans to introduce quarterly reporting and take action on late payments."

Fair enough. Apologies. I retract my point.  

 

Are there any figures or rates in the manifesto?

[lgfualol]

Today is the end of May

[Rincewind]

Because your interpretation of support is different. He supported the peace process that led to the IRA laying down their guns and coming to the negotiation table.

If there is a dispute with your neighbours family do you send someone to cool it down or someone who wants to punch their lights out or kill them or a calm person that can cool the situation down? At the time Corbyn had a cool head and gained the trust. He did not support the violence from either side but was able to understand the reason.

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There are already cheaper ways to buy things, Amazon have great systems, excellent delivery, most people would pay a few pence more without switching.  They have built loyalty.

Corbyn says all kind of nonsense.  Nuclear free world!  The top 5% can afford everything we think of!  Companies will just pay much higher taxes without any impact on the economy!

1

A quick input on these two matters:

 

An entirely nuclear-free world is something that would be more destabilising than things are now (they're the reason the big boys have been at least reasonably polite to each other for the last seven decades) but as has been said on here before there is no reason, at all, for more than two nations with enough armament to cause global trouble to exist. Everything more than that is just dick-waving.

 

Regarding the top 5%, this might not be exactly relevant but I think it should be said here:

 

"We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living." - Richard Buckminster-Fuller

 

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

"The rich don't work harder, they're just much luckier. " 

 

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous statement I've heard in my lifetime. 

 

Potentially accurate for a portion of "rich" people, but not everyone is born into riches, plenty have put in the effort needed to get the pay they're on. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it's a generalisation. The point is, however (I think) that for every rags-to-riches story you hear there are ten thousand where someone worked equally hard but ended up with a cheap funeral with one man and his dog in attendance, and around a thousand where someone was born into a rich family and stayed rich without having to work much at all.

 

You can't remove luck from the equation in this regard - it's probably a more important factor than any other.

[LiberalFox]

48 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Ha, no it doesn't quite work like that, but major investors, and indeed analysts have their expectations, and the board and company executives will be made very well aware of what that is.  I would certainly expect them to react and to increase prices. It wouldn't have to be a huge amount, as their profit margins are already pretty small, but it would be pushed back onto the tax payer for sure.

 

They might but there's no guarantee it would work for them. If I'm a consumer and I could buy a product from a highly profitable company for £1 or a non profitable company for £1 I might choose either. If you raise corporation tax and the first company puts up its price to compensate, then as a consumer I'm probably going to buy from the competitor because I couldn't give a stuff about what level of profit the shareholders in the other company would like.

 

I'm just making the point that increasing corporation tax wouldn't lead directly to price rises. 

 

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Because your interetation of support is different. He supported the peace process that led to the IRA laying down their guns and coming to the negotiation table.

If there is a dispute with your neighbours family do you send someone to cool it down who wants to punch their lights out or kill them or a calm person that can cool the situation down? At the time Corbyn had a cool head and gained the trust. He did not support the violence from either side but was able to understand the reason.

Did he ever have a minutes silence for the death of a loyalist paramilitary murderer?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Did he ever have a minutes silence for the death of a loyalist paramilitary murderer?

I'm bored of this.

 

Basically at the moment we have right wingers admitting their party is in turmoil and their leader weak. They are spending their time giving us reasons why labour's policies and bad and its leader bad.

 

Labour is saying what it wants to do in government. 

 

The Tory election campaign is basically project fear. I didn't vote for Brexit but I ope project fear fails just as badly this time around. 

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

I'm bored of this.

 

Basically at the moment we have right wingers admitting their party is in turmoil and their leader weak. They are spending their time giving us reasons why labour's policies and bad and its leader bad.

 

Labour is saying what it wants to do in government. 

 

The Tory election campaign is basically project fear. I didn't vote for Brexit but I ope project fear fails just as badly this time around. 

If you're bored don't read it.

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Today is the end of May

I don't think so!

 

 

 

There is another one next year.

 

[Guest MattP]

I have no idea how Yougov have came to the conclusion they did but I think it could end up looking ridiculous come next Thursday, Corbyn was in Reading for some bizarre reason today.

 

The last few polls from Britain Elects have seen good numbers for the Tories.

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 48% (+1)
LAB: 33% (-)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)

(via Panelbase / 19 - 23 May)

 

Westminster voting intention

CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (+1)

(via ICM Research / 26 - 29 May)
Changes with 26 May.

 

British Jewish general election voting intention:

CON: 77%
LAB: 13%
LDEM: 7%

(via Survation / last week)
 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 37% (+3)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via Survation / 26 - 27 May)

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 32% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via ICM Research / 24 - 26 May)

 

 

 

[Guest]

I know a lot of people that ate voting tory. None of them have watched any election coverage or have any interest in politics.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I have no idea how Yougov have came to the conclusion they did but I think it could end up looking ridiculous come next Thursday, Corbyn was in Reading for some bizarre reason today.

 

The last few polls from Britain Elects have seen good numbers for the Tories.

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 48% (+1)
LAB: 33% (-)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)

(via Panelbase / 19 - 23 May)

 

Westminster voting intention

CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (+1)

(via ICM Research / 26 - 29 May)
Changes with 26 May.

 

British Jewish general election voting intention:

CON: 77%
LAB: 13%
LDEM: 7%

(via Survation / last week)
 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 37% (+3)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via Survation / 26 - 27 May)

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 46% (-1)
LAB: 32% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via ICM Research / 24 - 26 May)

 

 

 

Just my theory, I'm not saying it's definitely what's happened. I'm a member on yougov, anyone can join, in the last few weeks there's been a lot of momentum type people joining. It could be that they've skewed the poll.

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Just my theory, I'm not saying it's definitely what's happened. I'm a member on yougov, anyone can join, in the last few weeks there's been a lot of momentum type people joining. It could be that they've skewed the poll.

That seems like the most plausible explanation. 

 

At least they aren't all calling it a Tory front now.