This is patently inaccurate. Ironic, given it's a 'fact check.'
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
This is patently inaccurate. Ironic, given it's a 'fact check.'
I get the impression Labour's policy is written by a naïve fourteen year old kid.
So Labour's manifesto is 'supertaxing the rich'... what's the threshold then? At what level does a tax increase from current rates become 'supertaxing the rich'?
We don't know, we are still waiting for the manifesto, last time in 2017 it said it was fully costed, this time maybe it will say the same. For it to be fully costed there has to be two budgets, one with Labour's leave deal and one with remain which will have to be completely different. Hope we get to see the detail. But there seems to be a lot of focus on getting money from the rich to pay for various parts of the policy. Devil will be in the detail.
Correct - although we also need a cross party conversation regarding future funding. As a country we've gone from spending 4.5% of GDP on health 20 years ago to 7.5% now. This isn't a trend that can indefinitely continue unless we all want to accept a worsening service for every other department such as education, transport, welfare, pension, police, military etc.
However instead of this grown up approach we'll have another campaign of political point scoring whereby Johnson says he's putting in (tens of) billions extra and Corbyn will say it's nowhere near enough. Neither will be honest about where those extra billions will come from either now or in the future because both of them are only interested in their short term political careers as leaders.
Long term funding will inevitably have to include some form of payment at the point of use (e.g. an excess), but this conversation is being stupidly delayed as whoever brings it up will be seen as unelectable. It needs a coming together with a cross party proposal agreeing a long term funding arrangement.
Both parties will be "fully costed", but both will apply primary school maths. Corbyn's will be UK taxable value * x% extra tax rate = £yb extra spend, assuming no-one would change their taxable declarations dependant on a much higher tax rate. Johnson's will state unachievable growth to pay for his spending I'd imagine.
The most recent ( 2019 ) statements from them are here -
https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/labour-s-tax-policies-under-corbyn
I wouldn't expect much change / difference but you never know.....
In my experience millionaires are fairly happy to get up and move when they perceive the tax burden to be too high. People who manage to make themselves very wealthy tend to be pretty obsessed about money and getting a good deal. Perhaps millionaire is the wrong term in this day and age for someone who is truly a member of the world's rich elite, you probably need £10m+ in assets.
Don’t sign pledges on NHS or climate, Tory HQ tells candidates
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-on-nhs-or-climate-tory-hq-tells-candidates
Corbyn needs to nail the Tories on this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...es-on-nhs-or-climate-tory-hq-tells-candidates
Corbyn needs to nail the Tories on this.
According to the same Credit Suisse report I cited the UK has about 400k more millionaires than France.
feck me, Andrew Bridgen in attempting to defend Rees-Mogg's comments about Grenfell has succeeded only in making even crasser and more contemptible comments than Mogg had in the first place.
oh my god
what the actual hell are they thinking. From insulting the dead to insisting on the nation forelock tugging. Great work.
Andrew Bridgen is a right tosser, but even this is daft
It's worse than daft, it's outrageous. What's daft was his belief expressed in an interview last year that English citizens could go to Ireland and claim an Irish passport. This is frankly infuriating. At least these Tories are exposing their true beliefs. At this rate they'll make Theresa May's campaign look like a masterstroke.
For our resident Lib Dems:
Gawd, no.
But this is just part of her wider strategy to win over tory liberals. Of course in the end she really is a lefty.
Last edited:
are the Conservatives trying to throw the election?
No they're just abhorrent human beings but it won't matter one jot to their voters.
Indeed, it’s so irksome watching media pundits scratch their hands and pretend that Labour’s policy is far too complex for people at the doorstep to understand. The way they bang on about it like it’s the Voynich Manuscript is disingenuous and seems to rely on the idea that the average working class voter won’t have a chance of deciphering it. It’s odd because it’s a policy very easy to criticise (as are the Brexit proposals of all the major parties) but the media seems to prioritise this over the far more damning lines to take.
Yep at least Swinson’s facade is easy to see through. Johnson, on the other hand, I’m not sure has a principle in his body. I actually suspect that his instinctive disposition is closer to ‘one nation Toryism’ than anything else (certainly there are far worse Tories ideologically such as Raab) but his overriding concern of personal ambition means he’d adopt whatever unscrupulous policy favoured him at any given moment.
it is for some people. If it can't be simplified into a slogan or catch phase its too much for them to take in.
All policies should have a three syllable rule going forward
Is there one single person on this forum who seriously believes that Labour can not only negotiate a whole new withdrawal agreement but also negotiate a free trade agreement within three months?
Aye's to the right, noes to the left, order!
Shakes head in despair.
Aye's to the right, noes to the left, order!
Shakes head in despair.
We all know John Prescott is probably regarded as a thatcherite in Labour circles these days, so who knows.
However, stating the bleeding obvious but Jo Swinson was a member of a tory government so it's not really surprising how many votes she shares with Tories.
It's not that it's hard to understand, I mean it's pretty clear (about freaking time), it's that the many previous shifts to get there have sown enormous confusion and distrust. Today, Labour's Brexit policy is X. Tomorrow, who knows what it'll be.
Frankly the fact that we started negotiations with the 2 year deadline without taking time to formulate policy through the usual policy papers and discussion in Parliament ahead of time was a joke .
I wrote to my MP before they voted over the Article 50 debate 3 years ago to say so and here we are...
Exactly. What was she going to do, put people's lives ahead of her career and resign on principle?
And yet in the media I’ve heard far more ‘wow this is really complex how on earth can voters understand this’ than I have legitimate questions about the feasibility/practicality of the policy.
she's been in parliament for 14 years, of which she was in enthusiastic alliance with the conservatives for 5. that would give her a 36% voting agreement assuming she agreed with every coalition policy and disagreed with every tory policy otherwise. you can understand a lib having a number close to 50%, because they do in fact openly agree with many tory policies.
77% is a level beyond all that.
The money is gone and they built no homes - a joke.
But wont somebody please think of the billionaires?!
You’ll never accept anything
The only thing that high taxes does is lessen revenue and make accountants richer.
It was almost as if they didn't realise what they were letting themselves in for. Not convinced they do now.
I presume because notwithstanding the feasibility of it, they still don't really know what Labour want to happen, because if either of those two things happen it will completely change how Labour policy will play out thereafter and will affect Labour's funding and spending.
I think a lot did, in fairness to them, but kicked the can down the road and only grew a spine way too late. However, yes there are a lot of very deluded people who are pushing for drastic change on the fly thinking it will be easy. You wouldn't run a small business like that, never mind a country with one of the largest economies in the world.
He was one of the few decent-ish ones.
Yeah what berbatrick said.
Also Swinson wanted a statue for Thatcher! Honestly its just odd that you are still defending her as anything other than a liberal Tory(Similar to Cameron for example) .
Didn't the US have very high tax rates in the 1950s...their most prosperous period?
I don't want to fill the thread up with the same reply. Did you check my other posts. (Also the fact checker was from partly from the Adam Smith institution.)
Last edited:
- Status