Election 2019 - Week 3

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's quite deliberate. Corbyn and McDonnell are determined to bring down capitalism, so they don't care about grossly overspending. McDonnell has actually said that he is not concerned about the money for Labour's policies running out because they will just print more money.

Of course, this will be disastrous for all of us and everybody, including the poor, will wind up worse off.

I think they're lying personally, a desperate ploy to change the polls. I don't see how what they're suggesting is possible. I don't think it's part of a plan to bring down capitalism because they won't be able to do it, all that would happen is the country becomes a basket case until they're brought down and their entire life project fails.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

£58bn out of nowhere and uncosted in the manifesto is crazy to me. I think Labour already had a credibility problem with their spending commitments that to come out and promise such a spending proposal seems counterproductive.

And Boris' extra spending on police/NHS plus tax cuts, it doesn't add up either. Both parties should be held accountable for uncosted pledges, not just one. Credibility is not something Bozza wins on.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

And Boris' extra spending on police/NHS plus tax cuts, it doesn't add up either. Both parties should be held accountable for uncosted pledges, not just one. Credibility is not something Bozza wins on.

We had the same type of pledges from both main political parties in their manifesto's at the last election but quelle surprise most of those pledges were ditched after the election stealthfully of course...

[jonbxx]

David Gauke, our outgoing Conservative MP who is now standing as a independent for SW Herts posted this rather marvellous campaigning tweet yesterday - https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/statu...97894964060160

Watch to the end...

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

David Gauke, our outgoing Conservative MP who is now standing as a independent for SW Herts posted this rather marvellous campaigning tweet yesterday - https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/statu...97894964060160

Watch to the end...

It will be interesting how voter disillusionment plays out on election night with both main parties and then there is also the tactical voting element and how that is going to play out as well.

Originally Posted by Mr K

And Boris' extra spending on police/NHS plus tax cuts, it doesn't add up either. Both parties should be held accountable for uncosted pledges, not just one. Credibility is not something Bozza wins on.

Adds up more than Labour's policies, the Tories aren't committing nearly as much money. Incidentally it's not so much the extra spending that's the issue, we should spend more on the NHS IMO, but the lack of proposals on where the money is coming from.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

Adds up more than Labour's policies, the Tories aren't committing nearly as much money. Incidentally it's not so much the extra spending that's the issue, we should spend more on the NHS IMO, but the lack of proposals on where the money is coming from.

Massive extra spending and tax cuts doesn't add up at all.

It's a twisted logic that says you'll accept lies so long as they aren't lieing as much ?

Originally Posted by Mr K

Massive extra spending and tax cuts doesn't add up at all.

It's a twisted logic that says you'll accept lies so long as they aren't lieing as much ?

Well I am not voting for either so not really a contradiction. Lib Dems lie as well but hell, got to vote for someone.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Massive extra spending and tax cuts doesn't add up at all.

It's a twisted logic that says you'll accept lies so long as they aren't lieing as much ?

“Massive extra spending” ... right ...

Have a look at this:



From here:

https://news.sky.com/story/general-e...16328-11869522

Labour’s spending commitments are 28 times greater than the Tories. The Tories are making relativity modest changes to the existing economic model; Labour are attempting to completely change the model.

There is an enormous credibility gap between the two and simply on the basis of better the devil you know, a lot of people will stick with the plan that is manifestly less risky.

If Labour doesn’t understand that the onus is on them to defend their commitments, much more so than the Tories, they’re not fit to put those plans into place.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's quite deliberate. Corbyn and McDonnell are determined to bring down capitalism, so they don't care about grossly overspending. McDonnell has actually said that he is not concerned about the money for Labour's policies running out because they will just print more money.

Of course, this will be disastrous for all of us and everybody, including the poor, will wind up worse off.

Can you reference the page in the Labour manifesto where there's a commitment to bring down capitalism?

As far as I can see they seek state intervention where no genuine market exists.

Any chance we can shrink that image/screen grab Chris ?

Sorry ... never quite worked out how to do that effectively on an iPad ...

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Chris

“Massive extra spending” ... right ...

Have a look at this:


From here:

https://news.sky.com/story/general-e...16328-11869522

Labour’s spending commitments are 28 times greater than the Tories. The Tories are making relativity modest changes to the existing economic model; Labour are attempting to completely change the model.

There is an enormous credibility gap between the two and simply on the basis of better the devil you know, a lot of people will stick with the plan that is manifestly less risky.

If Labour doesn’t understand that the onus is on them to defend their commitments, much more so than the Tories, they’re not fit to put those plans into place.

A bit sensationalist don't you think? If Labour were planning to spend 28 times more than the Conservatives (as you are trying to imply) then the figure would be in the region of £23 trillion (as the current UK government spending is ~£820 billion to £825 billion). I think what your trying to say is the that the Labour proposed increases in annual spending are 28 times that of the Conservatives, which is quite different.

If you put up a graph of total spending as a percentage of GDP then the numbers would be much closer but then you probably know that.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

A bit sensationalist don't you think? If Labour were planning to spend 28 times more than the Conservatives (as you are trying to imply) then the figure would be in the region of £23 trillion (as the current UK government spending is ~£820 billion to £825 billion). I think what your trying to say is the that the Labour proposed increases in annual spending are 28 times that of the Conservatives, which is quite different.

If you put up a graph of total spending as a percentage of GDP then the numbers would be much closer but then you probably know that.

In response to a comment by Mr K who was discussing “extra spending”, I think the context of my reply, and the graph, is perfectly clear ... but then I think you probably know that.

We already have a pretty good idea of the sustainability of current spending. What’s critical here is how far the pledges being made in this campaign will push beyond what we presently know to be sustainable.

The question is, how far are the parties diverging from one another and from the baseline of the current budget. The graph is pretty stark and effective I believe. Labour’s manifesto commitments are 28 times greater than the Tories. Fact.

[tweetiepooh]

One problem is that if it's you or your child/parent/friend that needs something the party promising to deliver that (soonest) may get your vote even if long term it's less good.

The NHS would swallow even all the Labour extra funding and still need more for something. The clinical/technical (even facility) staff do work hard and often efficiently but the finance/managerial side and other sheer wastage is incredible. Not helped by models that promote good workers to management where they may not be best suited.
Some of the wastage is being tied to inefficient supply contracts and the like that may be negotiated nationally that could be done better locally. (This would be non-clinical type stuff, that does need all sorts of checks.)