Bye Bye Boris!

[Swervin_Mervin]

Yeah I was just chuckling at that

[evostick]

IFS says neither main party manifesto spending plan is "credible": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

What a choice we have

Exactly.

How can you vote for any of them.

[Nefarious]

The problem we have here is that none of the promises being made by anyone have any bearing whatsoever on what will actually be delivered.

The tories seem to have cottoned onto the Trump strategy of just bare-faced lying and then flat denying it even in the face of absolute proof to the contrary. Labour seem to have lots of nice and well-meaning ideas that have little of no chance of being practically enacted. Lib-dems might as well promise a unicorn for every household, because they'll never actually be called on to deliver it.

GG's economic analysis wouldn't be too bad in theory if those in charge of implementing it actually had the objective of achieving the best outcome for the national economy, but in this case, they simply don't. They will say literally anything that they think will give them the keys to the piggy bank, and then get back on with the job of syphoning as much as they possibly can for their own personal gain.

Labour, meanwhile, if by some miracle did win a majority, would immediately find that their good-intentioned ideas mostly either got bogged down in internal conflict, and hence can't actually get through parliament, or simply aren't practically (or financially) possible.

IMO, the least-worst outcome for the country is some sort of Lab/Lib/SNP coalition. Not ideal, but at least its broadly socially-intentioned, would move brexit broadly in the right direction and is not an outright kleptocracy.

[Beany]

The tories seem to have cottoned onto the Trump strategy of just bare-faced lying and then flat denying it even in the face of absolute proof to the contrary.

This what specifically pisses me off about the Tories most at the moment.

If you support the current leadership of the Conservative party despite knowing the above, then quite frankly, you're either a dribbling idiot or just flat out maliciously selfish.

[Beany]

The tories seem to have cottoned onto the Trump strategy of just bare-faced lying and then flat denying it even in the face of absolute proof to the contrary.

This what specifically pisses me off about the Tories most at the moment.

If you support the current leadership of the Conservative party despite knowing the above, then quite frankly, you're either a dribbling idiot or just flat out maliciously selfish.

Further evidence of the above:
Boris Johnson threatens C4s public broadcast license over leadership debate he refused to turn up to.

This is what you're supporting if you vote Conservative - this level of rampant stupidity.

[Beany]

Oh, and The Beeb have set their lawyers on CCHQ for using their material out of context in an ad.

This is pure Trumpism, and exactly what Nef is talking about.

[Mito Man]

They should just ban political ads, waste of money plus if you’re stupid enough to be swayed to vote for a particular party due to seeing an very short ad then you really shouldn’t be voting.

[unzippy]

Of course it is if you have two kids there and earn 50 grand a year. Where does 400 extra a month magically come from?

I means you can no longer afford it. Live within your means.

[V8Granite]

Of course it is if you have two kids there and earn 50 grand a year. Where does 400 extra a month magically come from?

I means you can no longer afford it. Live within your means.

I don’t really know either way how best to manage things like this but how it is altered is hugely important. Our whole childcare is worked around my wife’s job, if things changed dramatically she would have to quit and then we lose a £1300 a month input to the house. That is life changing in the early years. If it is known about well in advance then at least it can be planned for.

Dave!

[GG.]

Of course it is if you have two kids there and earn 50 grand a year. Where does 400 extra a month magically come from?

I means you can no longer afford it. Live within your means.

And pull your kids out of school because someone radically changed the tax regime off the back of an ideological whim. You really are a stupid obnoxious cunt.

[Carlos]

I'm not going to quote that but you're not coming across that well yourself.

[GG.]

I think the hypocrisy is what irks me the most. I'm sure Zed would be the first to be shouting from the rooftops if there were swingeing cuts to benefits or about things like the bedroom tax where all of sudden people are put under significant financial strain overnight because of a change to the system that takes significant amounts of money out of people's pockets.

I think its simply a principal of fairness and good governance that if you plan on removing an exemption or hiking a tax rate that you do that in an incremental fashion. It doesn't matter who you're doing that to and what they take home initially - as I keep saying - its what's left over that counts and these forms of taxes are very binary and take no account of peoples individual circumstances. They're income and expenditure taxes - not a tax on whether you are, in fact, wealthy or not on a view of your actual assets or residual disposable income.

In fairness - maybe they will introduce a 5% rate rather than the full 20%, even if that does increase over time. I do accept that we're working on a worst cast scenario - but then that's down to lack of detail in the manifesto.

[Beany]

I think the hypocrisy is what irks me the most. I'm sure Zed would be the first to be shouting from the rooftops if there were swingeing cuts to benefits or about things like the bedroom tax where all of sudden people are put under significant financial strain overnight because of a change to the system that takes significant amounts of money out of people's pockets.

The important difference being that the sort of people who are impacted by cuts to benefits - which in case you hadn't noticed, which you obviously haven't, have already happened - typically have next to nothing to fall back on.

I'm fairly certain the average person with kids in private school will have contingencies such as savings, because they can afford to.

Those hit by benefit cuts or bedroom taxes living week to week? Not so much.

[GG.]

I know that's a nice generalisation - but it really isn't always the case. I do understand that they'll like have more in the way of savings or ways they can re-structure their finances but, in the real world, most people are going to struggle with an extra 2,400 per child per year. It actually means that you make private schooling even more for the elite than the middle class. Its those kind of unintended side effects that always result from this kind of thing.

[Beany]

I know that's a nice generalisation - but it really isn't always the case. I do understand that they'll like have more in the way of savings or ways they can re-structure their finances but, in the real world, most people are going to struggle with an extra 2,400 per child per year. It actually means that you make private schooling even more for the elite than the middle class. Its those kind of unintended side effects that always result from this kind of thing.

So, we're comparing sending your kids to private school, to literally not being able to afford to eat now?

This place is fucking amazing.

[GG.]

Of course, because that's exactly what I was intimating.

This is really only one example. If you want to move further towards significant hardship - then why not take the example of the small personal pension and the changes to dividend taxation that Andrew Neil highlighted in the Corbyn interview.

This ramping up of expenditure and taxation is going to hit a lot of people in the pocket. The increases in corporation tax will put pressure on employers to cut costs and likely lay people off. The idea that it just hits high earners and luxuries like private school will get found out pretty quickly in practice.

Crucially there will in all likelihood also be precious little to show for it. The IFS have highlighted that even were you to turn on the spending taps like this, the state sector does not have the capacity to actually utilise the money. And certain spending commitments though seemingly well motivated are illogical - the WASPI pledge for example will cost more than all the increase intended to be put towards education.

[NotoriousREV]

its what's left over that counts and these forms of taxes are very binary and take no account of peoples individual circumstances. They're income and expenditure taxes - not a tax on whether you are, in fact, wealthy or not on a view of your actual assets or residual disposable income.

If you have a large income AND large expenditure, you ain't poor. Choosing between paying for your rent, food and heating is poor. I know we've been through this argument before, but pleading poverty because your £1000 per month private school fees went up by 20% just shows that you are completely removed from the reality that most people in this country have to face. If the worst problem you have is trying to find a local school that gets an Outstanding Ofsted report, you're extremely lucky. And your problem is that you seem completely incapable of recognising your own privilege.

I think last time we went round the "someone on £75k isn't poor" route, we talked about childcare and social care costs possibly eating into that income significantly. Well, I guess that person should vote Labour, seeing as they're saying they'll reduce childcare costs and make personal/social care free.

[GG.]

I think the problem here is that your underlying argument behind this being ok is that because people are not poor or living a hand to mouth existence that you can hammer them with tax increases without that having a very negative effect on aspiration or the economy (or that it simply won't be counterproductive by eroding the, now very narrow, tax base).

I understand that you're in favour of better funding for public services, but that's a good argument for a traditional Labour government, not a marxist one that will spend inordinate amount of cash on pet projects, run the economy into the ground causing a crisis which then loops back around into those things being underfunded again on a second round of austerity.

[NotoriousREV]

I think the problem here is that your underlying argument behind this being ok is that because people are not poor or living a hand to mouth existence that you can hammer them with tax increases without that having a very negative effect on aspiration or the economy (or that it simply won't be counterproductive by eroding the, now very narrow, tax base).

I understand that you're in favour of better funding for public services, but that's a good argument for a traditional Labour government, not a marxist one that will spend inordinate amount of cash on pet projects, run the economy into the ground causing a crisis which then loops back around into those things being underfunded again on a second round of austerity.

Let's see the proof that what's in the Labour manifesto:

A) is Marxist
B) will run the economy into the ground

[Beany]

Yup, being able to make a decision about whether your kids will go to a top rated school or the local comprehensive is entirely comparable to the benefits system being set up to completely fuck you when you're at your most financially (and likely, psychologically) vulnerable.

To be clear, I was on UC for near a year due to lack of work in my area (yes, I left that area to find work in the end), and with one paperwork fuck up, they dropped a full third of my incoming for a month which led to me spiralling into debt that three and a half years later I've still not managed to fully crawl out of.

If you think the two are even remotely comparable, you're a blithering imbecile.

And yes, I'd be more than happy for someone who is relatively high earning having to put a bit more into the pot and perhaps cut back on some genuione luxuries so that people who are genuinely extremely vulnerable don't have to go through what I've gone through.

You are literally the sort of person who the guillotine memes are aimed at, you realise?