/ A final thought after the election

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Pursued by a bear - on 11 Jun 2017
We now have one party with a spring in its step, another party is riven with infighting. One party has a leader that's never been in a stronger position, one party has a leader that's effectively dead in the water. One party wants to drive its manifesto forwards, one party doesn't really know what it wants to do.

One party lost the election, one party won; and you know which is which. Strange times, but hopeful times too.

T.
2
Toby_W on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I wonder had it not been for our wonderful press would we have had a clear winner and strong and stable government now?

Toby

1
tripehound - on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Toby_W:

> I wonder had it not been for our wonderful press would we have had a clear winner and strong and stable government now?Toby

YES!
pasbury on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Toby_W:

Absolutely, the headlines in the Tory press in the run up were partisan in the extreme - to do what he did in spite of this is encouraging (and I say this not as someone not totally convinced by either labour or Corbyn)
1
Fraser on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Paraphrasing as I heard it described on the radio earlier today: 'the loser won and the winner lost'!
1
wercat on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Fraser:

If Montgomery had triumphed in this way at El Alamein he'd have had nothing left to push Rommel out of N Africa
Gordon Stainforth - on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Fraser:

I thought the headline today of the Sunday Telegraph (of all papers) summed it up very succinctly: 'In office, but not in power'.
1
summo on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Give it 2 months, I think many in Labour were really banking on this being the end of Corbyn. All those corbynites will need to plan their futures.
6
Stichtplate on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to wercat:

> If Montgomery had triumphed in this way at El Alamein he'd have had nothing left to push Rommel out of N Africa

What's with all the WW II references recently? Are you having flashbacks?
Hugh J - on 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Toby_W:
May was banking on the press to help destroy Corbyn and Labour. Both failed miserably. There never would have been an election if she thought for one moment it could have turned out like this.
Post edited at 22:35
wercat on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

Must be my interest in history!
Michael Hood - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear: The best thing I've heard is that the result of the election is that we have a strong and stable opposition!

2
krikoman - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> All those corbynites will need to plan their futures.

Prepare for government!!

9
summo on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Prepare for government!!

Hardly. Unless the magic money tree can also produce the 60 or so Labour MPs that they lost by.
8
Mike Stretford - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo: If they took about 20 seats off the Tories then they would be the party expected to form a government.

1
summo on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> If they took about 20 seats off the Tories then they would be the party expected to form a government.

If.... but they haven't; didn't etc... so it's irrelevant?
5
Offwidth - on 12 Jun 2017
Mike Stretford - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> If.... but they haven't; didn't etc... so it's irrelevant?

I would assume Krikoman was referring to the prospect of another election.
Lusk - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40243782

Another week lost due to this unnecessary election by this incompetent government, while they make their dodgy dealings with that dodgy party.

Do us all a favour and just GO, NOW!
4
summo on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Lusk:

But even the Tories with a useless leader promising to only take things off people can gain more votes then Labour promising to give everyone something for free. Doesn't that show just how much the country doesn't want Labour, they can't even bribe their way In? ;)

Lib dems tell people they can have more, but you need to pay for it and they did nothing in terms of gains. Just a few seats.

I don't have much hope. Maybe in 5 years time there will be better MPs and a more realistic population.
4
krikoman - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

According to the Pollsters who got the result right, they reckon Labour would win if the election was re-run today. This doesn't bode well for changes in the Tory party and if there's one thing they are good at it's closing ranks.
3
krikoman - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

Bribery seems to be the new Tory supporter meme.


https://www.facebook.com/phoebe.carr.33/posts/1408016009258354?pnref=story

summo on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Bribery

Telling 95% of population they can have something and the other 5% will fund it? It's clever marketing to get votes, but financially impossible... At least in the UK. Perhaps in the Vatican or Monaco it would work.

3
Mike Stretford - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
> Telling 95% of population they can have something and the other 5% will fund it? It's clever marketing to get votes, but financially impossible... At least in the UK.

Bribery? Promising the moon on a stick? Wonder where they got that idea.....

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/978061/img.jpg
Post edited at 15:05
2
krikoman - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
> Telling 95% of population they can have something and the other 5% will fund it? It's clever marketing to get votes, but financially impossible... At least in the UK. Perhaps in the Vatican or Monaco it would work.

again, you can't seen to get your facts right, it a pity your Tory blinkers prevent you from seeing anything that doesn't suit your agenda.

The tax wasn't ALL coming from the top 5% was it? There was an increase in Corporation Tax which doesn't belong to the top 5%.

Being a businessman, my company would have paid more tax, but that not my money, it's the businesses. In the same way that the business accounts money isn't my money, it the businesses money.

It would of course have meant the business would have less disposable income, all things being equal, but that wouldn't have to effect me or my standard of living.
Post edited at 14:50
2
Ciro - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Telling 95% of population they can have something and the other 5% will fund it? It's clever marketing to get votes, but financially impossible... At least in the UK. Perhaps in the Vatican or Monaco it would work.

Whilst comparing tax regimes is obviously complicated, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Israel, Japan and Slovenia all seem to manage OK with a top tax rate above 50 (and apart from Slovenia and Ireland higher corporate tax rates than us). What is it about the UK that you think means it wouldn't be viable here?
BnB - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> again, you can't seen to get your facts right, it a pity your Tory blinkers prevent you from seeing anything that doesn't suit your agenda.

> The tax wasn't ALL coming from the top 5% was it? There was an increase in Corporation Tax which doesn't belong to the top 5%.

> Being a businessman, my company would have paid more tax, but that not my money, it's the businesses. In the same way that the business accounts money isn't my money, it the businesses money.

> It would of course have meant the business would have less disposable income, all things being equal, but that wouldn't have to effect me or my standard of living.

Are you sure you own a business? Anyone who can read a balance sheet will be familar with the last but very important line at the bottom. It says "shareholders' funds" and it shows quite clearly who owns the money. Not the business, it belongs to the shareholders. Somewhere higher up the formula is the amount due for corporation tax and on every balance sheet I've played with, if you increase the CT due, then the assets drop and the matching shareholders funds diminish.

Or have you've found the magic money tree?*

* That's a joke. Don't bite
Post edited at 17:05
3
krikoman - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:
But it isn't their money until it becomes dividends, wages or the company ceases trading.

One of the problems I had when I first started was disassociating my thoughts that the money in the company accounts was MY money, it's not. It could be, but it doesn't become mine until it's paid to me as wages, after the tax man gets his share, or as dividend, which again the tax man want some of it too.

Obviously, it might affect what can be paid out in dividends, but if you're making a profit it might just be that retained earnings are less, you pay more tax but dividends could remain the same.

No money tree, yet, though I'm still looking
Post edited at 17:16
BnB - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> But it isn't their money until it becomes dividends, wages or the company ceases trading.

It's a fundamental principle of capitalism that the amount declared as shareholder's funds is free from lien or charge and freely disposable to the shareholder(s). It's just sat in the business account instead of their own because it hasn't been distributed yet. Unsurprisingly, increases in CT reduce the flow of funds into this pot.

I think you're confusing some good, sound principles of enterpreneurship, like pay yourself last, with accounting rules that define who owns what. Simplification is often very helpful but precision matters too
Post edited at 17:38
andyfallsoff - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:
Accounting rules might say that, but they are different from tax or legal rules.

Krikoman is completely right that by law those funds aren't the property of the shareholders - the shareholders only have legal title to the shares themselves. As a lawyer I would say that Krikoman's version of the situation is the more precise!
Post edited at 18:27
BnB - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> As a lawyer I would say that Krikoman's version of the situation is the more precise!

Thanks for the clarification but surely a lawyer will argue whatever his client asks him to ;-)

You aren't however suggesting that changes in CT don't affect how much money flows through to the shareholders as dividends (or sole traders as wages), as Krikoman seemed to be*, are you?

* I think he was really saying "it's all a bit complicated what happens before I get paid so I don't give much thought to the effect of a number of variables on the final distributable funds. I just get paid what's left!!" Which is fair enough but hardly a reason to ignore the impact of CT rises.
Post edited at 18:38
1
summo on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

Nothing against fair taxation at all. But I am against the idea that Labour will give everyone the world for free and someone else will pay, eventually.
2
Ciro - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
We all have different opinions on how much of our income should go into the common pot, but I was more interested in why you think it's "financially impossible" to raise a bit more cash from the wealthy in our society?

They seemed fairly well costed plans to me, and not particuarly out of the ordinary if you look around at how the rest of the developed world operates.
Post edited at 18:57
andyfallsoff - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Thanks for the clarification but surely a lawyer will argue whatever his client asks him to ;-)

Ha! Sometimes, although if I tried arguing that funds in a company's accounts belonged in law to the shareholders I'd probably get struck off...

> You aren't however suggesting that changes in CT don't affect how much money flows through to the shareholders as dividends (or sole traders as wages), as Krikoman seemed to be*, are you?

No, not at all. Merely that there is a legal distinction between the company's funds and the shareholders'. Obviously tax at the company level impacts the amount left to dividend out, but without the declaration of a dividend or other distribution of capital (e.g. on a winding up) whatever is there is absolutely the company's money.

> * I think he was really saying "it's all a bit complicated what happens before I get paid so I don't give much thought to the effect of a number of variables on the final distributable funds. I just get paid what's left!!" Which is fair enough but hardly a reason to ignore the impact of CT rises.


BnB - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Then my accounting is better than my law

In another life I'd have been a tax solicitor. I hope you'll tell me I should count my blessings.
krikoman - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Thanks for the clarification but surely a lawyer will argue whatever his client asks him to ;-)

I hope I'm not going to receive a bill for this!!!!

I really wasn't saying the bit about "whatever is left I get paid." We've been reasonably busy since we started, so I've always taken a wage and dividend equal to roughly what I'd earn working for someone else. The rest stays in the company for when it's not so good, savings if you like, but the company savings, not mine. That way there's no panic should work dry up for a bit, and we've always got good cash flow.

This is probably not the best idea, but it works for us.

I'm not for one minute suggesting a raise in CT doesn't affect companies, but it's not the harbinger of doom it's made out to be for all companies, and it certainly doesn't have to be part of the money from the top 5% earners.


1
summo on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> We all have different opinions on how much of our income should go into the common pot, but I was more interested in why you think it's "financially impossible" to raise a bit more cash from the wealthy in our society?

I thought the independent bodies said neither of the main parties had full funded manifestos.

I think Libdem 1% rise was a nod towards what is needed. Got them no where though.

Many countries have higher taxes for everyone, but most don't have the UK debt mountain and under funding of services, pension time bomb... to suggest to all ages they can have their cake and eat it is the stuff of dreams.

1
BnB - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Good luck in your enterprise whatever it is you do. We all need businesses to thrive.
andyfallsoff - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> I thought the independent bodies said neither of the main parties had full funded manifestos.

Pretty much. Labour manifesto was costed but ignored the effect of the tax changes on receipts (which is a complex subject). Conservatives ignored figures altogether.

> I think Libdem 1% rise was a nod towards what is needed. Got them no where though.

Agreed!

> Many countries have higher taxes for everyone, but most don't have the UK debt mountain and under funding of services, pension time bomb... to suggest to all ages they can have their cake and eat it is the stuff of dreams.

True, but we've also had a shockingly poor recovery since the financial crisis which many think is because of austerity - we cut back on govt spending when we should have been splurging to get the economy going again. I find it odd that both major parties ignore big and well documented economic effects - Tories ignore Keynes, Labour ignores Laffer
andyfallsoff - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Haha no you're safe from me. Although I have often wondered what the time I spend on UKC would be worth in my charge-out rate...
Ciro - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Many countries have higher taxes for everyone, but most don't have the UK debt mountain and under funding of services, pension time bomb... to suggest to all ages they can have their cake and eat it is the stuff of dreams.

So is climbing 9a. Best thing to do with the stuff of dreams is try to find a way to achieve it.

Our levels of debt are above average, but they're not exceptional... our debt to GDP ratio is less than a number of European nations, and and Japan's is more than double ours. Even if it was, I'm confused as to why having a large public debt (or an aging population for that matter) would make it impossible to raise taxes, rather than making it neccessary?

As for the under funding of public services, how do we resolve that if not by raising taxes?
1
Postmanpat on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> As for the under funding of public services, how do we resolve that if not by raising taxes?
>
How do you fund it through raising taxes?
1
Ciro - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Pretty much. Labour manifesto was costed but ignored the effect of the tax changes on receipts (which is a complex subject).

The plan included £3.9bn for 'additional behavioural change and uncertainty', reducing the total tax revenue (whether that was an adequate amount to factor in I have no idea, but they didn't ignore it).
1
Ciro - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ask the countries listed above?
1
Postmanpat on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Ask the countries listed above?

There are many lists. Which list? It's not about total debt by the way.
1
Ciro - on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There are many lists. Which list?

Sorry, earlier I had posted: Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Israel, Japan and Slovenia all seem to manage OK with a top tax rate above 50 (and apart from Slovenia and Ireland higher corporate tax rates than us). What is it about the UK that you think means it wouldn't be viable here?

Those countries must feel they are getting some benefit from the higher tax rates, rather than chasing away businesses and high earners.

> It's not about total debt by the way.

I know, I'm still confused as to why that was deemed to be relevant... but since it was, and there's a general perception that the UK is in a terrible position, I figured I might as well point out that we're not that far from the norm.

pec on 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Here's a few thoughts on the election which don't seem to have been mentioned much. At the start of the campaign the Tories were on 43% in the polls and at the end of it were virtually the same, over the course of the campaign the net transfer of votes from Conservatives to labour was virtually zero, despite running a very poor campaign.
The rise in labour's poll ratings almost exactly correlates to the combined fall in the Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP.
The Lib Dems and Greens virtually threw in the towel in large parts of the country, will they be willing to do that again? Certainly the UKIP vote can't collapse again and either way there aren't a lot more votes left for labour to win from those parties next time so they have to take them from the Conservatives, something which they failed to do this time and with a new leader and lessons learned the Tories aren't going to give them away.

After the last election overturning a 12 seat Conservative majority must have looked like a very realistic propspect to Labour with a half decent leader. Now Corbyn had a great campaign, he certainly way exceeded expectations but that avoiding annihilation and failing to come close to winning is regarded as success is a measure of just how low those expectations were, expectations brought about by his poor leadership of the Labour Party and failure as a leader of the oppostion. Set the bar low enough and anyone can appear to do well.
At the end of the day, most of his party don't share his views, his leadership skills haven't improved and he'll be 73 at the next election, he just comes across as a nice bloke. Now that his strength and weaknesses are better understood the Conservatives won't go into another campaign so badly prepared.
Political stars can fall very quickly. In 2010 we had Cleggmania, within months there were student riots and he was fatally wounded. In 2015 Sturgeon was flavour of the month, two years on she's been brought back to earth with a bump. In 2016 May was walking on water, now she's a dead woman walking and now in 2017 we have Corbynmania. How long will that last?

Anyway, there's a few thoughts, over to the lefty zealots to dislike away
3
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

I'm not against putting up tax at all, but the UK will only clear it's debt to balance the budget even occasionally and improve services (slowly) if everyone pays more tax.

The idea that you can deal with benefits, education, nhs , school meals, transport, uni fees , and corbyns other promises etc. With only the top 5% and business paying more tax is dreaming. People have no sense of scale of the funding require. But some how believe spending will encourage growth and it will all be fine, think we heard that off the last Labour government.
2
Michael Hood - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to pec:
> Here's a few thoughts on the election which don't seem to have been mentioned much. At the start of the campaign the Tories were on 43% in the polls and at the end of it were virtually the same, over the course of the campaign the net transfer of votes from Conservatives to labour was virtually zero, despite running a very poor campaign.

> The rise in labour's poll ratings almost exactly correlates to the combined fall in the Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP.

Not sure I agree with your conclusion - I think Labour did take significant Tory votes, but these were replaced by UKIP (mainly), Lib Dem (some) and Green (any?) votes. All of these parties loss of votes will have been split in their movement to Tory and Labour.

Of course it's not possible to accurately determine the actual movements between the parties, results from opinion polls can give an "educated" guess. So although it's technically possible that zero voters made the Tory to Labour move, I think it's highly unlikely. Obviously, the end the result is the same.
Post edited at 07:18
krikoman - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Good luck in your enterprise whatever it is you do. We all need businesses to thrive.

Cheers, It's harder than I thought, we've been going for 14 years now. Working for yourself gives you the opportunity to work all the time, which isn't the best way to be. After saying that I'm not sure I could go back to a "proper" job.
1
pec on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Not sure I agree with your conclusion - I think Labour did take significant Tory votes, but these were replaced by UKIP (mainly), Lib Dem (some) and Green (any?) votes. All of these parties loss of votes will have been split in their movement to Tory and Labour. >

Its widely thought the UKIP vote that returned to the Tories had largely done so before the election campaign started, the rise in Tory support during May's leadership seems to confirm that. Either way I said NET transfer, of course within that some individuals went each way.
krikoman - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to pec:
I think you are looking at the final numbers and making assumptions about them, which aren't true. If you look at the figure for each constituency you'll see where the vote went and came.

As for setting the bar low, he never did, it was people like you (and most of the media) that set the bar low because, "he was unelectable" remember? The pollsters who got the closes to the result, say if the election was rerun Labour would be the winner. Many people voted elsewhere, because they believe the bollocks about JC being unelectable, which of course has been prove to be bullshit.

Badly prepared!!! Who decided to call the election? Don't you think a GOOD leader would have been prepared, especially since there was NO pressure for her to call the election, she was holding all the cards and still f*cked it up!!


Edit: You don't agree that JC has given the membership a voice then? This is why JC was elected leader for in the first place, not for business as usual. So yes there are some in Labour that would want it to go back, but they are very blinkered, if they can't see what people like about JC and why they should be backing him. Chris Leslie -Nottingham, for one, a disingenuous idiot who still attacks JC even though his voters are telling him the reason the voted for him was, they were voting for JC!! It's amazing the lengths some people will go to prove themselves right. It'll be difficult for anyone to challenge JC for a while, so maybe we'll get some stability and people (Labour MPs) will realise, they should be working not for Jeremy but for the people they represent.
Post edited at 09:05
winhill - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I wouldn't read too much into the result this time round.

Other factors have played a huge part.

In Scotland indyref2 seems to have been a massive mistake for Sturgeon, some of the results are just bizarre.

Ochil and South Perthshire for example had a large Labour majority then a huge swing to SNP then 2 years later a 20% swing to Tory, similarly Gordon (20%) and Moray (16%).

If Sturgeon had kept more seats May would have gone.

In England there was a large anti Tory campaign, half a dozen tactical voting websites appeared. Tactical 2017 had targeted 71 Priority 1+2 constituencies, 30% converted or 20 seats. Sounds like a small success but again enough to strip May of her majority.

If you take those off Labour's total then they won just 4 more seats than 2010.

Again it's tempting to say that Labour benefited most from UKIP's demise but there was a large downturn in 50-65 year olds voting, which was UKIP's base, so maybe Labour got the yoof vote rather than the UKIP vote.

I wouldn't say it was any sort of victory because we still have Brexit, it's easy with hindsight but we won't have had a better chance to overturn Brexit, especially with UKIP in disarray, so a stronger Labour leader who led a anti-Brexit campaign, like Blair suggested, may well have overturned. It could have been electoral suicide but I would have bet the farm to avoid Brexit.
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:
> I'm not against putting up tax at all, but the UK will only clear it's debt to balance the budget even occasionally and improve services (slowly) if everyone pays more tax.

Nonsense, there's always going to be more than one way to skin that cat. The UK has fairly high levels of income inequality. You can argue over whether it's right to tax the wealthy and corporations more, but it's clear that we could raise quite large sums by doing so if we chose to.

> The idea that you can deal with benefits, education, nhs , school meals, transport, uni fees , and corbyns other promises etc. With only the top 5% and business paying more tax is dreaming. People have no sense of scale of the funding require. But some how believe spending will encourage growth and it will all be fine, think we heard that off the last Labour government.

Which part do you think is dreaming?

What Labour says it will cost
£48.6bn
Universities £11.2bn
Removing university tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants

Schools £6.3bn
Increasing funding, including protection against losses from the new funding formula, free school meals and arts pupil premium

Pre-school £5.3bn
Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start

Skills £2.5bn
Introducing free FE tuition, equalising 16-19 funding and restoring EMA

Healthcare £5bn
Healthcare including free car parking but excluding higher pay and capital expenditure

Social care £2.1bn
-

Nurses £0.6bn
Restore bursaries

State pensions £0.3bn
Uprate state pensions for British pensioners overseas, extending pension credit to those affected by changes to their state pension age since the 1995 Pensions Act

Social security £4bn
Increase ESA by £30pw for those in the work-related activity group, scrap bedroom tax, implement the PiP legal ruling, restore housing benefit for under 21s, scrap bereavement support payment reforms, £2bn of additional funding for universal credit for review of cuts and how best to reverse them, uprate carers’ allowance to the level of JSA

Paternity £0.3bn
Double paternity pay and paternity leave

Barnett consequentials £6.1bn
Increased funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Public sector pay £4bn
Lift public sector pay cap

Police £0.3bn
Recruit an additional 10,000 police officers to work on community beats

Other current spend items £0.6bn
Including abolition of employment tribunal fees, additional border guards, firefighters and HMRC tax collection staff

Real living wage £0bn
Introduce a real living wage of at least £10 an hour by 2020 with net fiscal benefits ringfenced to provide support to small businesses

How Labour says it will pay for it
£48.6bn
Labour make a £3.9bn allowance for 'additional behavioural change and uncertainty', reducing the total tax take

Corporation tax £19.4bn
Raising the headline rate to 21% from 2018-19, 24% from 2019-20 and £26% from 2020-21

Income tax £6.4bn
Increase for top 5% of earners by lowering the threshold for the 45p additional rate to £80k (top 5%) and reintroducing the 50p rate on earnings above £123k

Excessive pay levy £1.3bn
A payroll tax, charged against the employer of any individual earning more than a defined limit

Offshore company property levy £1.6bn
A charge made against purchases of residential property by offshore trusts located in known tax havens

Tax avoidance £6.5bn
Linked to Labour's programme to tackle tax avoidance and evasion

Stamp duty £5.6bn
Extension of stamp duty reserve tax to derivatives and removal of exemption

Corporate tax £3.8bn
Efficiency review of corporate tax reliefs

Reversing tax giveaways £3.7bn
On capital gains tax, inheritance tax, bank levy and scrapping the married persons’ tax allowance

VAT on private school fees £1.6bn
Other £2.6bn
Savings on discretionary housing payments from scrapping bedroom tax, soft drinks industry levy spend redirected from capital to revenue, higher rate IPT on medical insurance, reform controlled foreign companies corporation tax regime
Post edited at 10:30
krikoman - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:

> In Scotland indyref2 seems to have been a massive mistake for Sturgeon, some of the results are just bizarre.

I can't for the life of me think why anyone in Scotland would vote Tory, it's the same here - local hospital is closing, huge uproar, major campaign against closure, Tories more than 50% of the vote FFS!!

Let's look at the history
2007 victory for the SNP for Scottish parliament 47 seats.
2010 GE only held on to their 6 seat in Westminster.
2011 Scottish parliament elections landslide victory 69 seats!
2014 Referendum - Tories promise all sorts of sweeteners to vote "better together"
The SNP are narrowly defeated in the referendum.
After reneging on nearly all of their promises the Tories gain 13 seats!

It's a funny old world

tony on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> I can't for the life of me think why anyone in Scotland would vote Tory,

Because there's a growing distaste for the SNP and sense that in some constituencies, voting Tory was the best way to unseat the SNP incumbent - it happened in my constituency, and it's what did for Alex Salmond.
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to pec:

> At the end of the day, most of his party don't share his views

What are you basing that assertion on? He's won two leadership elections at a landslide, and it seems fairly clear there are many MPs who would have challenged him again in a heartbeat, if they thought the majority of the party had changed their minds.

On face value, I agree it doesn't look good that he couldn't beat such an inept government. However for the past two years he's been fighting against the Tories, a hostile press, and a large number of his own MPs, who refused to accept the change of direction voted for by the party membership. You could argue that's down to poor leadership skills, but it seems fairly obvious to me that many in the PLP were going to refuse to be lead left, regardless of who was doing the leading.

Perhaps now said MPs will get on board with the membership and their leader to oppose the Tories instead, and we'll see what he can do as leader of the opposition.
Postmanpat on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Essentially what we appear to be seeing is a rolling pattern of "anti-establishment" voting.
The success of of the SNP was largely an anti Tory and then an anti Labour voter. The Tory success this time was an anti establishment ie.SNP vote.
Brexit was an a "anti all of you vote", the Lib dem surge in 2010 was an anti Tory/Lab vote but reversed when they were became part of the establishment.

Corbyn is 2017 has managed to harness many of these anti establishment votes in what is essentially a populist backlash (using Stephen Kinnock's definition of populist , "simple answers to complex problems".) He may therefore continue to benefit from this positioning whilst out of power but not for long when he is the power.

krikoman - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to tony:

I see, thanks for the info, never thought of that.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

I don't need a list thanks, only the knowledge that independent bodies said neither parties projections were correct. Much of the money they offered to spend on the nhs and education would get sucked up on wage rises and make no difference to the service, class sizes etc.. to actually improve them it would need serious funds, where from?
1
krikoman - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> You could argue that's down to poor leadership skills, but it seems fairly obvious to me that many in the PLP were going to refuse to be lead left, regardless of who was doing the leading.

You could argue, that it's BECAUSE of his good leadership skills, he's still in the position he is DESPITE their attempts to remove him.
Postmanpat on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Nonsense, there's always going to be more than one way to skin that cat. The UK has fairly high levels of income inequality. You can argue over whether it's right to tax the wealthy and corporations more, but it's clear that we could raise quite large sums by doing so if we chose to.

>
It's actually not clear and the IFS doesn't buy it.

But much more to the point: Corbyn and McDonnell describe themselves as "socialists". The 2017 isn't a 2017 truly socialist manifesto. It scarcely differs from the Conservative manifesto , for example, in its funding of the NHS of even social spending. Do you think this is becasue they are not socialists or because they aspire to much bigger changes?
The New NickB - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to pec:

I think the big story of this election is that a lot of people who had never voted before, decided to vote Labour. The lesser story is that fewer of the UKIP voters voted Tory than expected.

My own constituency and it's neighbour we're both considered to be vulnerable to the Tories, in each case the Labour candidate increased the majority (8,000 & 15,000).
Postmanpat on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> I think the big story of this election is that a lot of people who had never voted before, decided to vote Labour. The lesser story is that fewer of the UKIP voters voted Tory than expected.

>
So the question becomes:

1) Do the young keep voting? (probably many do)

2) Are they voting for Labour or for Corbyn?

3) Can the Tories take a proportion of the young vote if they actually try?
The New NickB - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So the question becomes:

> 1) Do the young keep voting? (probably many do)

I hope so, whatever your politics, it is good for democracy.

> 2) Are they voting for Labour or for Corbyn

Good question, not one I know the answer to.

> 3) Can the Tories take a proportion of the young vote if they actually try?

Some, maybe. Of course the Tories know the demographics, which is probably why they used there resources elsewhere.

Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> I don't need a list thanks, only the knowledge that independent bodies said neither parties projections were correct.

The list was more for my benefit - I was hoping for a more constructive argument to give me something to think about than it won't work because someone said it won't work.

> Much of the money they offered to spend on the nhs and education would get sucked up on wage rises and make no difference to the service, class sizes etc.. to actually improve them it would need serious funds, where from?

You don't think investing in the people working in our services, helping to retain and recruit the best talent, will improve those services? It may not be a magic bullet, but it's surely a start.
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But much more to the point: Corbyn and McDonnell describe themselves as "socialists". The 2017 isn't a 2017 truly socialist manifesto. It scarcely differs from the Conservative manifesto , for example, in its funding of the NHS of even social spending. Do you think this is becasue they are not socialists or because they aspire to much bigger changes?

I'd say it's because they are pragmatic - they've looked at what sort of change they could make in the course of a 5 year parliamentary term and produced a manifesto accordingly. Of course it doesn't look like a socialists ideal manifesto, but we don't live in an ideal world.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:
> The list was more for my benefit - I was hoping for a more constructive argument to give me something to think about than it won't work because someone said it won't work.

It's been hammered out in here a fair bit since Corbyns coronation. I suspect fatigue maybe setting in.

> You don't think investing in the people working in our services, helping to retain and recruit the best talent, will improve those services? It may not be a magic bullet, but it's surely a start.

Of course it boosts moral and staff retention. But if all staff earn 5% more it still doesn't change ratios, buy equipment etc.. I just think it needs much more. Plenty economists say you'd need 3 or 4% on the base rate just to fund the nhs to provide people's current aspiration. That's ignoring the ever ageing population. Corbyn little punishment taxes on banks, property etc.. would just provide a little sticky plaster for the nhs and would provide theming term increase in funding.

There is a lot of recent stuff on the r4 more or less programme over the past month, where they analyse the maths behind the various parties claims.
Post edited at 12:24
1
Postmanpat on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> I'd say it's because they are pragmatic - they've looked at what sort of change they could make in the course of a 5 year parliamentary term and produced a manifesto accordingly. Of course it doesn't look like a socialists ideal manifesto, but we don't live in an ideal world.

But do you think that they aspire to much bigger changes?
1
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> You could argue, that it's BECAUSE of his good leadership skills, he's still in the position he is DESPITE their attempts to remove him.

Or the fact all the Labour MPs who refused to work with him were hoping that the Tories would mount a decent campaign and they could get rid of him after the election.

Once the Tories stabilise, Labour will look for a new leader. Corbyn has peaked, with boundary changes he needs to do even better in 2022 just to stand still, so even a moderately improved Tory leadership would see Labour suffer. Not to mention he isn't getting any younger.

The new Tory party that has to please the dup, will bring back triple lock and other bribes so next election with short memories the grannies will be voting again.
1
lummox - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:


in 2022

bit early to be drinking isn't it ?
Jim Nevill - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to winhill:
If Sturgeon had kept more seats May would have gone.

This is a very interesting point, and as far as I am aware, not previously mentioned.

Anyway...
Brute politics (i.e. staying in power)
There won't be much appetite to replace TM until there's a chance of winning an election, as why would you want to inherit a poisoned chalice? At the moment there look to be very few windows of opportunity: inflation up, real incomes down, continued austerity, all of which will be worsened by a complex, fractious and damaging Brexit. So Boris and others will be thinking: 'when on earth can I go to the country?'.
So they will limp along, let her take the pain, politically, while we all suffer.
Gloomy? Me?
tony on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim Nevill:

> If Sturgeon had kept more seats May would have gone.

> This is a very interesting point, and as far as I am aware, not previously mentioned.

I was in a pub on Saturday evening and heard a conversation along those lines - or rather 'Scotland buggered it up again'. If the Scottish Tories hadn't done as well as they did, we'd have an alliance of Labour, SNP and the LibDems in Government. So, we can blame Nicola Sturgeon.
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

An interesting read in the Economist this week, discussing if Britain is turning into America in regards to political landscape, with a politics less about class and more about values. Sounds good, but as it goes on to say...can be dangerous.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723197-election-reveals-astonishing-changes-political-landsc...
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

> in 2022


Why Not? Labour aren't any stronger than when they lost under Gordon? Libdems are still asleep. Unionist parties have done better in Wales, ni and Scotland. Things 'should' settle.
2
lummox - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

You should put some money on May lasting until 2022 : )
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to tony:

> I was in a pub on Saturday evening and heard a conversation along those lines - or rather 'Scotland buggered it up again'. If the Scottish Tories hadn't done as well as they did, we'd have an alliance of Labour, SNP and the LibDems in Government. So, we can blame Nicola Sturgeon.

The Tory government is the SNPs fault for only winning 60% of the seats they contested? You should have taken their drink off them, they'd clearly had too much. In England, the Tories have a 30 seat majority... if an English opposition party had performed as well as the SNP, the Tories would have been buried.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

> You should put some money on May lasting until 2022 : )

That's not what I said though. I said Corbyn won't fight a GE until then. Not the same thing.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> if an English opposition party had performed as well as the SNP, the Tories would have been buried.

But that opposition party might have just as easily taken Labour voters too. You can't presume other voters remain static. Look at 2010. Bigger SNP, UKIP and Libdem. Labour still lost.
lummox - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

Ok, you should put money on there not being a GE until 2022. It's very touching that you have such faith in the Con whips, for a start.
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But do you think that they aspire to much bigger changes?

Over the course of a single parliament no.

Long term? Of course, but that's fairly irrelevant, as at the end of every 5 year parliament the government has to put forward its plans for further change, and the public get to choose whether or not they like what's put to them. The UK is never going to become a socialist state. We could, however move towards a Scandinavian style of social democracy, which I wouldn't see as a bad thing.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

> Ok, you should put money on there not being a GE until 2022. It's very touching that you have such faith in the Con whips, for a start.

It's not faith in the tories, it's a belief that labour can't hold it together that long to be a meaningful opposition.
1
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> But that opposition party might have just as easily taken Labour voters too. You can't presume other voters remain static. Look at 2010. Bigger SNP, UKIP and Libdem. Labour still lost.

Eh? I fail to see how an English opposition party taking 60% of the seats in England could have lost the election.
Postmanpat on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:
> Over the course of a single parliament no.

> Long term? Of course, but that's fairly irrelevant, as at the end of every 5 year parliament the government has to put forward its plans for further change, and the public get to choose whether or not they like what's put to them. The UK is never going to become a socialist state.
>
Why not? It's what Corbyn wants. It's absolutely what his close supporters and team want. If you are assuming that it won't happen you are implying that he would do so much damage over five years that he would lost the next election. Not a great recommendation.

If one is voting for the sort of government one wants why would one vote for one that wants to turn the UK into a socialist State?
Post edited at 13:33
2
galpinos on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Why Not? Labour aren't any stronger than when they lost under Gordon?

By seats or vote share?

2005 - 35%
2010 - 29%
2015 - 37%
2017 - 40%

They seem to have a lot more of the population behind them? When did we last have a 'losing ' part with a 40% vote share?
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Eh? I fail to see how an English opposition party taking 60% of the seats in England could have lost the election.

You have to presume they will get on and form a coalition. Labour won't work with SNP, UKIP etc... to gain the kind of numbers you are talking about would require a strong leader, perfect pr, funding, a cause not even marginally covered by other parties. UKIP did it a little but was a one trick pony, same with SNP. Greens are pretty similar. If you look at the votes attained by say the Yorkshire party, most are happy just to keep their deposit.
lummox - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

If the Cons can't pass legislation because they don't have an effective majority, which could happen for a number of reasons, they will be compelled to hold a GE. The chances of them hanging on until 2022 are about the same as Halle Berry throwing herself at me.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to galpinos:


> They seem to have a lot more of the population behind them? When did we last have a 'losing ' part with a 40% vote share?

That's because things have suddenly gone two party politics again.
1
jkarran - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Once the Tories stabilise, Labour will look for a new leader. Corbyn has peaked, with boundary changes he needs to do even better in 2022 just to stand still, so even a moderately improved Tory leadership would see Labour suffer. Not to mention he isn't getting any younger.

2022? This government won't last the year once the peace process in Northern Ireland starts to show cracks and what little plan we had for brexit falls off the tracks. Add to that within a few weeks there'll be ritual bloodletting in the conservative ranks and exasperation in Europe. That's assuming they get a government off the ground at all.

> The new Tory party that has to please the dup, will bring back triple lock and other bribes so next election with short memories the grannies will be voting again.

It is hard to see them making the same mistakes twice but 5 years is not a long time in which to be forgiven or forgotten for perceived treachery, ask any deposed LibDem MP.
jk
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> You have to presume they will get on and form a coalition. Labour won't work with SNP, UKIP etc... to gain the kind of numbers you are talking about would require a strong leader, perfect pr, funding, a cause not even marginally covered by other parties. UKIP did it a little but was a one trick pony, same with SNP. Greens are pretty similar. If you look at the votes attained by say the Yorkshire party, most are happy just to keep their deposit.

Not at all - if Labour had performed as well in England as the SNP did in Scotland, there wouldn't be a coaltion, labour would have a majority of around 28 seats.

The Scottish left did not lose this election, the English left did.
tony on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> It is hard to see them making the same mistakes twice but 5 years is not a long time in which to be forgiven or forgotten for perceived treachery, ask any deposed LibDem MP.

In addition, by 2022, the Tories will have been in Government for 12 years, which is about as long as the British public seem to tolerate of any one party (notwithstanding John Major's win in 1992). Given all the turmoil that's going on now, it's hard to see sensibly beyond the end of the year. History suggests that minority governments don't tend to go the distance.

Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Why not? It's what Corbyn wants. It's absolutely what his close supporters and team want. If you are assuming that it won't happen you are implying that he would do so much damage over five years that he would lost the next election. Not a great recommendation.

Because we don't always get what we want in life. I'm saying that after 5 years of moving towards a more socialist model, the people would have a chance to say "yes we like this journey, let's keep going" or "no, we've gone far enough". That's how democracy works, and we're the better for it, because no ideology (whether it be socialism or unfettered free market capitalism) is without flaws.

> If one is voting for the sort of government one wants why would one vote for one that wants to turn the UK into a socialist State?

Because the sort of government one wants generally only exists in ones head. In the real world, we only get a choice of direction.
RomTheBear on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Why not? It's what Corbyn wants. It's absolutely what his close supporters and team want. If you are assuming that it won't happen you are implying that he would do so much damage over five years that he would lost the next election. Not a great recommendation.

> If one is voting for the sort of government one wants why would one vote for one that wants to turn the UK into a socialist State?

As you know I'm no fan of Corbyn, and would vote for labour only tactically, and his manifesto was crap, but that seems to me a bit of an exaggeration.
Are his policies much different than that of the left in several European countries, that have done, overall, pretty well ? Genuine question, personally I struggle to see any massive difference.
Post edited at 14:35
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Ciro:

"Not at all - if Labour had performed as well in England as the SNP did in Scotland, there wouldn't be a coaltion, labour would have a majority of around 28 seats."

TBH, there are many ways to skin a cat. May was only 400 votes away from a majority government

"In the eight constituencies with the tightest margin over second-placed Tories, the combined majority was 786.
This means that, had the Conservatives convinced 401 people across these eight constituencies, Theresa May would still have her majority in Parliament."

thomasadixon - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

It's an interesting point, and doesn't need to be based on having faith in the whips. If Tory MPs have any self interest whatsoever they'll pull together for now, at the least. They don't want another GE right now, that's for sure. They want one when they've had a chance to fix their image, which will be some time after leaving the EU.

It's noticeable that the pro-remain agitating MPs from just after the election seem to have gone silent. I wonder how long that will last...
Ciro - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I don't care how you skin it, blaming Scottish polititians (when Scotland returned a minority of Tory MPs), and not English politicians (when England returned a substantial majority of Tory MPs) for a Tory government is beyond ridiculous.
lummox - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

How long do you think Cons with slender majorities will bite their tongues when the Magic Money Tree TM is transplanted to NI and their local schools and hospitals are completely on their arses due to lack of funding ?
pec on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Yet again, your reply to one of my posts shows you haven't actually read the words I've written, you've said what you want to say anyway whether it directly relates to what I actually wrote or not.

> I think you are looking at the final numbers and making assumptions about them, which aren't true. If you look at the figure for each constituency you'll see where the vote went and came. >

Yes I was looking at the before and after picture, that's why I said NET transfer whilst later acknowledging movement within that (obviously really).

> As for setting the bar low, he never did, it was people like you (and most of the media) that set the bar low because, "he was unelectable" remember? The pollsters who got the closes to the result, say if the election was rerun Labour would be the winner. Many people voted elsewhere, because they believe the bollocks about JC being unelectable, which of course has been prove to be bullshit. >

I never said JC set the bar low for himself, yes it was everybody else who did, but THEY are also the ones now saying what a great result it was, which of course it wasn't, Labour lost by quite a long way. And yes it was also a terrible result for the Tories, I don't wear blue blinkers.

> Badly prepared!!! Who decided to call the election? Don't you think a GOOD leader would have been prepared, especially since there was NO pressure for her to call the election, she was holding all the cards and still f*cked it up!! >

How does this relate to any of the points I made? I DID say it was the Tories who were badly prepared, go back and read it : "the Conservatives won't go into another campaign so badly prepared" why do you always try and twist what I actually said to what you would have liked me to say just so that you can argue with it?

> Edit: You don't agree that JC has given the membership a voice then? This is why JC was elected leader for in the first place, not for business as usual.>

I haven't said anything about this, why do you make this stuff up in reply to my posts?

> So yes there are some in Labour that would want it to go back, but they are very blinkered, if they can't see what people like about JC and why they should be backing him. . . >

So we at least agree that many of his MP's don't support him. Whether they should or not is again, not something I've commented on but it isn't going to help him regardless.

> It'll be difficult for anyone to challenge JC for a while, so maybe we'll get some stability and people (Labour MPs) will realise, they should be working not for Jeremy but for the people they represent. >

Yes, fair enough but it doesn't really relate to my musings on what happened in the election which were really just a few observations as food for thought. My point was really that what looks like a great result for Corbyn wasn't really that great after all and with the perspective of time may or may not come to be seen as such, who knows? And also that Labour still have a mountaion to climb to win an outright majority for the reasons I outlined because whilst JC clearly has momentum on his side right now (if you'll excuse the pun), a week is a long time in politics so 6 months, 2 years, 5 years or whatever it is till the next election happens is a lifetime away and a lot can happen to political fortunes.

1
Pursued by a bear - on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to everyone:

It's interesting when a thread starts one way - in this case with what I thought was a curious, possibly even wry, observation - and then takes off in a completely different direction.

Sometimes this is because the person who started it has knowingly thrown a conversational hand grenade into a well-stocked armoury and then retired to watch the fires started by his trolling burn long and bright. Since I haven't commented further, I couldn't blame you if you thought that was my purpose here. It wasn't: I haven't made a further comment as I've had nothing to add before this self-defence, but I have read the discussion and thanks to all for contributing. It's made me think a bit.

OK, carry on...

T.
summo on 13 Jun 2017
In reply to lummox:

> How long do you think Cons with slender majorities will bite their tongues when the Magic Money Tree TM is transplanted to NI and their local schools and hospitals are completely on their arses due to lack of funding ?

NI already receives the most per capita from the UK treasury, then Scotland, then wales. So what's new England last as usual.
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
lummox - on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

I'm sure you will be proved correct. Strong and stable. Stable and strong.
krikoman - on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to pec:

> Yet again, your reply to one of my posts shows you haven't actually read the words I've written, you've said what you want to say anyway whether it directly relates to what I actually wrote or not.

I didn't know I was restricted to only answering questions you posed, I'm sorry for not knowing the rules. I have however tried to introduce points which are relevant to the general conversation.

> Yes I was looking at the before and after picture, that's why I said NET transfer whilst later acknowledging movement within that (obviously really).

SO we agree then? But your statement IS meaningless really, and let's not forget there were some pretty major and surprising changes, which are not highlighted by simply totting up the figures. Kensington for instance - it's like them saying, "we're willing to give up some of our money to help the poor, Tax us a bit more and stop saying we don't want higher taxes"

> I never said JC set the bar low for himself, yes it was everybody else who did, but THEY are also the ones now saying what a great result it was, which of course it wasn't, Labour lost by quite a long way. And yes it was also a terrible result for the Tories, I don't wear blue blinkers.

Some people, not just JC, didn't set a low bar for Labour at all, but your post suggests otherwise.

> How does this relate to any of the points I made? I DID say it was the Tories who were badly prepared, go back and read it : "the Conservatives won't go into another campaign so badly prepared" why do you always try and twist what I actually said to what you would have liked me to say just so that you can argue with it?

I didn't realise we were only allowed to answer points you 'd made. (See above)
I was pointing out it WAS TMs CHOICE, no one made her call an election, she KNEW she was going to call it, so she HAD time to prepare for it. Unless of course she didn't think to prepare for something she was putting forward. This doesn't bode well for our Brexit, does it? ( I think this relates to her leadership skills - which is something you've questioned about JC previously)

> I haven't said anything about this, why do you make this stuff up in reply to my posts?

But you did say "MOST" of his party don't support him. I was pointing out that the party isn't the PLP, which you seem to think it is. The membership support him, it's the disconnect between membership and the electorate and the PLP that's the issue, they (the PLP) don't seem to connect with the people on the ground, those with the power to vote for the government.

> So we at least agree that many of his MP's don't support him. Whether they should or not is again, not something I've commented on but it isn't going to help him regardless.

You've gone from MOST to MANY - can we try "SOME" and then I'll agree, once again if you're asking for me not to twist things, you might be a bit more honest.

> Yes, fair enough but it doesn't really relate to my musings on what happened in the election which were really just a few observations as food for thought. My point was really that what looks like a great result for Corbyn wasn't really that great after all and with the perspective of time may or may not come to be seen as such, who knows? And also that Labour still have a mountaion to climb to win an outright majority for the reasons I outlined because whilst JC clearly has momentum on his side right now (if you'll excuse the pun), a week is a long time in politics so 6 months, 2 years, 5 years or whatever it is till the next election happens is a lifetime away and a lot can happen to political fortunes.

The great result depends on what you are comparing it to though doesn't it, if you were comparing it to what we were told would happen by the media, then yes it's a massive result. If you are comparing it to a landslide victory and Labour are now the majority government, then no it's not great.

If you want to look at it generally you could say people have given a lot of credence to the policies Labour are promoting, even in a lot of places which are traditionally Tory, they vote AGAINST lower taxes and more austerity (Kensington is a clear example, but there are many others)

Of course a week is a long time in politics I didn't say otherwise and don't disagree with you on that. Two years is a very long time in politics and Corbyn has been leader of the party for more than that, while being attacked almost constantly by the media and some of his own party, since then. If you are hoping for him to buckle you might have to wait a while longer, he's not Cameron, "I be there to see us through no matter what the result of the referendum is". Just because you don't like him doesn't mean you can't trust his word, I realise yo might not be used to this, "There'll be no snap election", "strong and stable", etc.

sorry if I haven't stuck to the prescribed agenda.

1
krikoman - on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to summo:

> Or the fact all the Labour MPs who refused to work with him were hoping that the Tories would mount a decent campaign and they could get rid of him after the election.

I'm quite certain some, perhaps not all (some still put party before themselves), would have like a Tory landslide (Tony Blair, although he's no longer an MP would have loved it I'm sure), Chris Leslie, seemed quite keen, for failure.

> Once the Tories stabilise, Labour will look for a new leader. Corbyn has peaked, with boundary changes he needs to do even better in 2022 just to stand still, so even a moderately improved Tory leadership would see Labour suffer. Not to mention he isn't getting any younger.

You're just being daft now, apart from the older bit, but we're all getting older, even you!

> The new Tory party that has to please the dup, will bring back triple lock and other bribes so next election with short memories the grannies will be voting again.

OR her interfering will re-ignite the troubles and the Tory party will be caustic for years to come. (This is a joke, and not what I would like to see)

1
krikoman - on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "In the eight constituencies with the tightest margin over second-placed Tories, the combined majority was 786.

> This means that, had the Conservatives convinced 401 people across these eight constituencies, Theresa May would still have her majority in Parliament."

Can you work this out for Labour?
MonkeyPuzzle - on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:
Considering the Tories got 42% of the vote and ended up with 48% of the seats, vs Labour getting 40% of both the vote and seats, the government don't have anything to cry about. They are and are usually the biggest beneficiaries of FPTP.
Post edited at 09:41
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Yes, here it is..

"Despite moving forward with gains across the country, the maths is much harder for Jeremy Corbyn. Winning 262 seats, the Labour Party is currently 64 seats short of a majority in Parliament.
The majorities of the 64 closest seats where Labour is in second place total 103,550 votes - meaning that Labour would have to persuade half of these people to vote for them in order to be on course for a majority."
pec on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> I didn't know I was restricted to only answering questions you posed, I'm sorry for not knowing the rules. I have however tried to introduce points which are relevant to the general conversation. >

You can answer any questions you like, just don't put "In reply to pec" at the top of stuff which isn't in reply to me, its not a case of rules, just common sense and courtesy.
If you want to introduce relevant points then fine but don't put words I haven't said into my mouth and then argue against them. If you want to get it off your chest do it in another post or at least make it clear that's what it is.
You really do have a bad habit of doing this all the time, for example, above you wrote:

"You don't agree that JC has given the membership a voice then? This is why JC was elected leader for in the first place, not for business as usual."

Anyone reading that would reasonably interpret that I had said JC hadn't given the membership a voice. How else could anyone interpret that? In reality I had said nothing of the sort either for or against that statement. You just make stuff up and put it as words in my mouth just so you can argue the point you want to make.
Its either a deliberate attempt to decieve or the product of a muddled mind, neither reflects well on you and either way it doesn't make me inclined to believe anything else you post.

Its a shame really because I actually find some of your non political posts quite entertaining but as soon as you get on to politics the blinkers come down and the zealot takes over. Its not that you and I disagree that's a problem, I couldn't care less, most of my friends are lefties like you but when you come from the perspective that you can't even begin to understand why anybody could hold a different opinion to yours it makes rational debate impossible.
krikoman - on 14 Jun 2017
In reply to pec:

Or you could just ignore anything I've written, and pick one issue and use that to ignore the rest.

I didn't say I couldn't understand why you don't think like I do. I asked the question, "You don't agree...." simple yes or no would have done.

Sometime I'am guilty for putting responses to other peoples threads, sorry it upsets you. I'll try harder next time.

Love,

Krik. xx

1
Jim C - on 15 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Prepare for government!!

But there is no money left for Labour to squander.
( they said so themselves when the left the note in the office, and the Tories have ran up even more debt since)
Big Ger - on 15 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim C:

Don't worry, the 5% will gladly pay.
1
krikoman - on 15 Jun 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Don't worry, the 5% will gladly pay.

Nice one, once again with the slogans. It doesn't work, Corp. Tax isn't part of the 5% is it?

And they the 5% are so anti-tax, that Kensington voted Labour.
1
wbo - on 15 Jun 2017
In reply to Jim C: I remember that note - bailing out capitalism cost a lot of money!

Dismal that after 9ish years of Conservative government real wages are below 2008 levels isn't it? Luckily the FTSE is up


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.