General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Kinell, they're actually talking about overhauling stop and search.
They're crazy ballsy. Actually acting like they've already won. If they do end the triple lock, and do end the promise of no tax rises, and they do charge pensioners more for their social care, then they are taking away Labour's future ammunition.
And like you say, with brexit, they are asking for a free hand to do whatever the hell they want.
Kuennsberg with a good question
Labour's plan was very positive and optimistic, whereas this is very "hard times, tough choices, trust us, BREXIT".
Labour's plan was very positive and optimistic, whereas this is very "hard times, tough choices, trust us, BREXIT".
Everything is a preprogrammed. Its like she's been indoctrinated
Q: The manifesto does not say if high earners will pay more in tax. Will they?
May says high earners face a choice, between a party that always has and always will believe in low taxes, and a Labour party whose instinct is to put up taxes.
Q: The manifesto does not say if high earners will pay more in tax. Will they?
May says high earners face a choice, between a party that always has and always will believe in low taxes, and a Labour party whose instinct is to put up taxes.
That is exactly the right position heading into these negotiations. This contrasts with the Liberal Undemocrats, who'd sell the electorate down the river, and Labour, who don't have the least clue what their strategy would be.
I get the electoral politics of it, but it's still going to be odd to see Corbyn's main attack be against things that are vaguely redistributive.
Q: On page 36 the manifesto says you think no deal is better than a bad deal. Is this a mandate for leaving the EU with no deal? And wouldn’t that cause chaos?
A: May says she wants the best deal for Britain. She wants a deal that works for the whole of the UK.
And the Westminster bubble wonder why we all hate politicians. Some of the most vacuous shit I have ever heard.
123456
Last edited:
Labour is in the exact same position as the Tories. You can't praise one and criticise the other.
Liberal undemocrats. Jesus
This is how New Zealand did their flag referendums.
First, select which flag will be competing
Second put that flag against what exists currently.
This is the right way to hold referendums, and if anyone had ever thought there was the a real possibility Brexit would happen, that's what we would have had.
First referendum; choose what Brexit we are going to have (Single Market In & Immigration In OR Single Market Out * Immigration Out, etc)
Second referendum; this Brexit vs the Status Quo
The problem is that the Brexit we are going to get is not one that anyone has voted for. If the Tories keep immigration, they are going to piss off 30% of the electorate. If the Tories get "no deal" and tank the economy, they are going to piss off 70% of the electorate.
Right now they are hard set on a free-trade agreement with no single market access and paying the smallest divorce bill possible. Possibly - this is what the electorate would have asked for in a NZ style double referendum anyway, but we don't know that. No one voted for it.
I expect they'll probably still be promising this by 2025. Whilst simultaneously claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
Labour is in the exact same position as the Tories. You can't praise one and criticise the other.
Liberal undemocrats. Jesus
Is it not Labour policy that they will accept any deal, irrespective of the bill? Emily Thornberry also admitted on LBC earlier this week that they have no plan for how future immigration will be managed. And point blank, i wouldn't trust Corbyn to defend British interests in talks with the EU. He'd roll over for a tickle.
For years, Clagg and the Lib Dems said they wanted a clear In/Out referendum; such was part of their opposition to a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. They got what they asked for but didn't like the result.
Do you actually believe no deal is better than a bad deal?
It's one thing to say that the UK should be willing to walk away if they are not satisfied with the deal on offer. It's another to believe that black is white, and that no deal is better than a bad deal. And so we have the Conservative party stating in their manifesto their belief in something which is patently false.
I have huge issues with Labour's response to Brexit, but at least their manifesto isn't displaying such blatant stupidity.
Labour Manifesto said:
And he's still voting for it 'because Corbyn' the laughable little toad.
Changing to FPTP for elected mayors, not at all for their own benefit you understand.
Exactly what is the reasoning that Corbyn would be any more likely to roll over than May? Other than you not liking him
As for the statement on no deal. Nobody is stupid enough to be influenced by a few empty statements, the EU are well aware of the impact of no deal ffs
It wouldn't be among my preferred options at this point, neither the first choice nor the next best alternative, however the possibility is there. More importantly, those sitting around the table must believe it of us too.
From what I've read, the Tory manifesto is an absolute disaster
I'm sorry but the idea that the UK will genuinely go into negotiations with the EU with the prospect of them using no deal as some sort of negotiating tactic is a nonsense in my opinion. The whole no deal better than a bad deal is merely a slogan meant for the electorate at home. Surely the right way to approach the negotiations is to get the stuff they already pretty much agree on down as the baseline of any agreement, no hard border in NI, rights of citizens etc. so that any agreement cannot be any worse than that at least. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland and spends a fair amount of time in border areas (both north and south of it) the idea of no deal is just absolutely crazy.
A strong and stable one though. Its a master peice according to the Mail of courseFrom what I've read, the Tory manifesto is an absolute disaster
Good overview on the care stuff from Ed M's old policy bloke
I believer those things are already our starting position. Indeed walking away a more basic deal, with those sort of things its heart, would be my Plan B. They could even be agreed in principle and stated publicly by both parties this year. But if the EU continues to insist on a single payment of 60-100bn before we move forward, things become difficult.
Agreed. From abroad it looks a bit like a suicidal person standing at the edge agreeing to speak to a counselor on the condition of still being allowed to jump. No deal would certainly hurt the EU too, but not even on the same magnitude as it would hurt the UK. No deal is the worst possible deal.
What time do the media plan on screaming about costings (or the lack of) in the Tory manifesto?
Got the IFS on hand for that:
It's actually not as simple as that.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surp...ib-dem-inout-eu-referendum-leaflet-32686.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/referendum-membership-lib
Although I'm not saying they didn't flip-flop on this issue for years.... but the Lib Dems never wanted this.
Tories have admitted that they can't ensure immigration will come down (although the 100k net migration figure remains).
The thing is, I don't trust the Tories to get anything out of the negotiations at all. They'll be choosing "no deal" over "bad deal" because they just cant get a good deal. Labour have a lot more love stored from EU leaders.
From the last four polls or so, the average Tory lead is about 15 points. It'll be very interesting to see how much Labour can gain when the Tory manifesto is taken into account in the coming week.
According to that their will be required tax increases though?
I suppose the tories have given so little detail the IFS can only talk ideology rather than their actual jobs.
Nope still wrong.
We pay £4.3 Billion a year in subsidies to the rail franchises directly from the government, or in real terms, three times what British Rail received.
The extortionate fares are on top of that.
So your premise that state rail is more expensive, is nonsense, provably so.
Good to see those meetings with Murdoch and Dacre were not entirely unproductive.
Really interesting read.
Policy sounds transformational - really intrigued to see the response. Labour have to attack this with everything they have.
But at the same time I think it's clearly fair that older people will have to pay more, including of their assets to fund care. The charts in that article are fascinating, especially the divergence in benefit expenditure per head. You have to agree with the last two paragraphs of that article, even if you disagree with how the policy will be implemented.
Like you said I assume this must be arrogance - actually putting through unpopular policies that Osborne shied away from because they think they'll still win the election. They will still win the election, but response to the manifesto and the next three weeks now looks a lot more interesting. I find May such a black box to understand.
If only Lab/Lib had backed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty... Instead, further resentment built up over time (as well as the crash) and they picked the wrong battle.
Of course immigration isn't coming down to the 10,000s (nor should it), that's why there's no deadline. But electorally, it plays a lot better than Labour's nebulous messaging.
I suspect that Labour would be accepting of things contrary to the current stance: continued ECJ jurisdiction, FoM, larger ongoing contributions e.t.c.
This proposed investment in NHS infrastructure, is it coming out of the £1.5bn of additional funding each year? I don't see any other figures in the manifesto for health.
We don't need another PFI mess on our hands.
We don't need another PFI mess on our hands.
Indeed, but I suspect that, when it comes down to it, the Tories will accept a lot of that as well.
Freedom of movement is going to go away, but something similar could take it's place.
IFS's take on the move from triple to double lock.
IFS Observation - Moving from a Triple to a Double Lock does little to long-run state pension affordability
Authors: Carl Emmerson and Andrew Hood
Today’s Conservative manifesto announced that from 2020 onwards the state pension would be increased over time in line with average earnings or inflation whichever is highest – the so-called ‘Double Lock’. In this observation we show that this is very similar to sticking with the Triple Lock, and does little to resolve the pressures an ageing population will put on the public finances over the years to come.
The Figure shows projected state pension spending as a share of national income up to 2066–67 (based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility Fiscal Sustainability Report, and not incorporating the recommendations of the recent Cridland Review) under three uprating rules: average earnings, the double lock and the triple lock. As we have noted before, half of the increase in state pension spending forecast over the next 50 years (0.9% of national income, or nearly £20 billion in today’s terms) is explained by the triple lock, rather than other factors.
As the figure makes clear, moving to a double lock does very little to help. State pension spending in fifty years time is only 0.2% of national income lower (less than £5 billion in today’s terms). In other words, moving to a double lock undoes only around a quarter of the damage done by the triple lock to the long-run sustainability of the public finances. So with the double lock in place spending on the state pension would still be projected to increase by 1.6% of national income (a little over £30 billion in today’s terms) over the next fifty years, with over 40% of this increase being explained by the double lock (relative to increasing in line with average earnings) rather than other factors.
The fundamental reason for this is that it is pretty rare for both average earnings and inflation to be below 2.5%. Hence getting rid of the 2.5% element of the triple lock does little to change the projected long-run generosity of the state pension.
Figure. Projections of state pension spending
The frustrating thing is that it is possible to insure pensioners against the state pension ever falling in real terms without the ‘ratchet’ effect that means both a triple-locked and double-locked state pension would rise faster than earnings or prices over the long run. The answer is the ‘smoothed earnings link’ described here which makes sure the state pension never falls in real terms, and rises in line with earnings growth over the long run.
Labour gets nowhere near enough credit on what it did on child poverty.
The response to the care policy will be interesting, Mail went positive today but if "Death Tax" builds up a head of steam then you never know.
One benefit of this election is that we won't hear "Labour lost because they didn't offer a clear enough alternative". Two very different options on the table.
With the benefit of more time, i somewhat confused by the content of the speech . Naturally, they wanted to go big on the Brexit and tough decisions mantra, but why not also mention the health and education funding? According to the news, they're pretty well matching Labour's pledge on the schools budget (although the timeframe might be different).
I do think that earlier predictions have been borne out today; a Tory PM describing companies as rip-off merchants for instance.
I do think that earlier predictions have been borne out today; a Tory PM describing companies as rip-off merchants for instance.
A referendum on whether to stay in the Single Market when, prior to any negotiation, no one would have any idea of what the cost of that would be.
So the Single Market option would not be 'Single Market In', it would actually be 'Single Market In No Matter What The Cost'.
Mind you some would still be dumb enough to vote for that, I suppose.