UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[rogueMatthias]

4% of the UK earn 100k or above.

Let's take somebody earning 100k. They'll have to pay £83 more a month. .

Plus new taxes on public education, plus raising taxes on private healthcare, plus raising inheritance tax rates (and lowering threshold) plus all the other extra charges.
I'm not against some tax increases on larger salaries and I think the large salary levey for companies is a good idea, but it feels he's trying to milk people for every penny in every area he can.

[Fleuria]

Plus new taxes on public education, plus raising taxes on private healthcare, plus raising inheritance tax rates (and lowering threshold) plus all the other extra charges.
I'm not against some tax increases on larger salaries and I think the large salary levey for companies is a good idea, but it feels he's trying to milk people for every penny in every area he can.

Inheritance tax is disgusting in the first place and shouldn't exist.

I mean the current costing plans really allows for no leeway in case of market growth decrease etc. it's all very simplistic mathematics. What will they do if the market forecast is horrible for a year are they going to lower the tax thresh hold etc to say 40-60k or just hike taxes on the rich even more.

They also left out the glaring hole for funding the apparent nationalisation of the private sector which suggests they will borrow to make this happen.

I'm all for trying to boost social welfare etc but given the history of the Country and when people bought in policies like these previously every one ended up poorer and worse off after a few years, oh well should he win it'll be interesting to see if history repeats itself again.

[Deleted]

They also left out the glaring hole for funding the apparent nationalisation of the private sector which suggests they will borrow to make this happen.

I'm all for trying to boost social welfare etc but given the history of the Country and when people bought in policies like these previously every one ended up poorer and worse off after a few years, oh well should he win it'll be interesting to see if history repeats itself again.

Privatisation was brought in with the effort to provide a competitive market where the working person could get the best deal for themselves. In reality, a small amount of companies hike prices, and especially with trains, we pay over the odds to mostly use a single company for our travel. Not to add some of the worst and most expensive travel services.

Ended up poorer because of what policies? Do you mean the global financial crisis?

Wage growth is slower than inflation. Again. So right now we're poorer.

[Fleuria]

Privatisation was brought in with the effort to provide a competitive market where the working person could get the best deal for themselves. In reality, a small amount of companies hike prices, and especially with trains, we pay over the odds to mostly use a single company for our travel. Not to add some of the worst and most expensive travel services.

Ended up poorer because of what policies? Do you mean the global financial crisis?

Wage growth is slower than inflation. Again. So right now we're poorer.

Yes it was done to get the consumer a better deal which kinda back fired as they just ended up having price wars with each other and hiking prices, it how ever doesn't detract from the fact currently to reclaim these sectors it would be quite a heavy burden on cost and no way to really finance these dream promises.

No I was referring to the 60's on which most of his policies are based, people ended up so badly off due to erratic spending that it allowed the Tories to gain majority control for the next 20 years.

I'd be looking forward to my juicy £2.50 p/h pay rise even though I already earn more than £10 p/h, would be utter bull shit if higher earners weren't equally adjusted to that of the M/W as that would bite him in the arse extremely quickly.

[caervek]

Dunno what to do now, I was planning to vote Labour as I like my local Labour candidate, but having seen Corbyn's "infinite money to piss away" manifesto I'm in two minds. I don't want to vote for the Tories as despite having the least right wing leader they have had in half a century they are still bad for the NHS IMO. I like the Lib Dem policies but their leader has the appeal of warts.

[Fleuria]

Dunno what to do now, I was planning to vote Labour as I like my local Labour candidate, but having seen Corbyn's "infinite money to piss away" manifesto I'm in two minds. I don't want to vote for the Tories as despite having the least right wing leader they have had in half a century they are still bad for the NHS IMO. I like the Lib Dem policies but their leader has the appeal of warts.

I would actually think about voting Labour if it wasn't for the whimsical maths and the awful shadow cabinet he picked because some of his policies are actually quite likeable.

Shame he had a mass walk out of his front bench previously that allowed people like Dianne"I hate white people"Abbott to take a more central role, might of actually made him more likeable in the public eyes rather than scared quite a few potential voters off.

I'll likely vote conservative again just because I don't have to much to gain from a massive social shift and I've always tended to value market stability over the NHS.

[Kallisto]

Dunno what to do now, I was planning to vote Labour as I like my local Labour candidate, but having seen Corbyn's "infinite money to piss away" manifesto I'm in two minds. I don't want to vote for the Tories as despite having the least right wing leader they have had in half a century they are still bad for the NHS IMO. I like the Lib Dem policies but their leader has the appeal of warts.

What about Plaid, sure they're just a joke too but unless you're in a place that's close you can always protest that way.

[Kalis]

I don't want to vote for the Tories as despite having the least right wing leader they have had in half a century they are still bad for the NHS IMO..

Come, embrace One Nation Conservatism, we are the past, present and future, the alpha and the omega.

And you can still hate Michael Gove, we think he is a twat as well.

[Deleted]

Come, embrace One Nation Conservatism, we are the past, present and future, the alpha and the omega.

And you can still hate Michael Gove, we think he is a twat as well.

well the British people have had enough with experts so they clearly think he is worth listening too.

[Kalis]

well the British people have had enough with experts so they clearly think he is worth listening too.

That's nice dear.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Labour have this simplistic view of economics, whereby if you increase corporation tax from 19% to 26%, then you will see a linear increase in revenue. However, last year corporation tax fell by 1% and revenue increased by over 12%.

Similarly, Hollande increased personal income tax levels in France for high earners, so the rich Frenchies moved to London and paid tax to us instead.

Perhaps McDonnell let Abbott do the calculations, who knows?

And the Tories have this simplistic view that if you have a deficit, you cut back on how much money the government spends and then don't realise that it will reduce the income you get as well. Leaving you perpetually in deficit and with a country in depression. So you just carry on saying "we will clear the deficit in 5 years" for seven fucking years. And end up still saying it at the end of that time. I wonder what their manifesto will say? "We will clear the deficit by 2022. Honest. We really mean it this time. I know we are doing the same thing endlessly, but this time it's going to work, for real".

Or you are so economically illiterate that you sell the blood plasma service that the country owns for £150m, only for it to be sold on 4 years later for its true value of £800m. Costing the country over half a billion pounds really shouts "capable" to me.

Sure, lets run this election on the basis of who is economically capable of running the country. Or will you just admit that you are too dishonest to apply the same standards to your beloved Tory party that you do to Labour?

[Kalis]

And the Tories have this simplistic view that if you have a deficit, you cut back on how much money the government spends and then don't realise that it will reduce the income you get as well. Leaving you perpetually in deficit and with a country in depression. So you just carry on saying "we will clear the deficit in 5 years" for seven fucking years. And end up still saying it at the end of that time. I wonder what their manifesto will say? "We will clear the deficit by 2022. Honest. We really mean it this time. I know we are doing the same thing endlessly, but this time it's going to work, for real".

Or you are so economically illiterate that you sell the blood plasma service that the country owns for £150m, only for it to be sold on 4 years later for its true value of £800m. Costing the country over half a billion pounds really shouts "capable" to me.

Sure, lets run this election on the basis of who is economically capable of running the country. Or will you just admit that you are too dishonest to apply the same standards to your beloved Tory party that you do to Labour?

The country is not in a depression, so your argument falls in the second sentence. Even Corbyn's manifesto managed to get further than that.

[Teleros]

Sorry, where in the UK constitution

If you knew anything about the UK constitution you wouldn't be asking this.

entitled to a Veto

We had until very recently a single parliament with the same rules on representation for Scottish people as English, Welsh, and Northern Irish, and nobody had a veto because everyone was ruled the same way, or near enough. Now that Scotland has its own parliament as well, and can manage many of its affairs independently of Westminster, it arguably has this power, unlike the English. For example, Scotland has an effective veto on university tuition fees, because they apply to England & Wales but not to Scotland, due to the power of the Scottish parliament.

an exit clause

Impressive - until now I hadn't realised it was possible to sleep through the months-long campaigning around the Scottish independence referendum. I admit I felt like doing so whenever Alex Salmond was on TV, but I never imagined anyone actually did it.

judicial or executive representation?

Scottish law is actually different to English common law (to the point where our ghastly new Supreme Court doesn't judge criminal cases in Scotland), and they've sent plenty of people into Number 10. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair spring to mind, and David Cameron has Scottish ancestry as well (dunno about Theresa May, haven't checked).

If Scotland would be a 'puppet' in the EU, the UK is a fascist dictatorship.

Be that as it may, the point remains that they'd be leaving one union only to leap into another. Now, being in a political union like the UK or the EU by definition means you are not independent.

= + =

As for the UK being fascist, you might want to clarify which definition you're using:

1. Something I don't like.
2. To the right of Chairman Mao.
3. Actual fascism, as suggested by the next two paragraphs.

Emilio Gentile's definition: "A mass movement, that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy."

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about the subject and defined it thus: "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."

Feel free to google either name .

Of course, I suppose on balance you might not need to do this, because it's clear that if you opt for the first or second definitions you're an SJW lunatic (but I repeat myself) who's escaped from your safe space, and if you pick the third definition you're an idiot for deliberately misusing the word.

Take your pick .

[Deleted]

If you knew anything about the UK constitution you wouldn't be asking this.

That's sort of my point.

[draykorinee]

The country is not in a depression, so your argument falls in the second sentence. Even Corbyn's manifesto managed to get further than that.

It doesn't fall just because of one error in wording, they are still failing at reducing the deficit yet that was one of their reasons for the constant cutbacks and part of their economic rhetoric for years. It's a fact we have been outpaced by every other G7 country and the Tories have failed. Bit like on their immigration rhetoric.
I understand why you went for the easy cop out instead of defending the Tories economic policies...because no one can defend them. Hue is absolutely spot on, minus one poor choice of word.

[Huehuecoyotl]

The country is not in a depression, so your argument falls in the second sentence. Even Corbyn's manifesto managed to get further than that.

Ah, the Kalis that is such a delight to enter into debate with. That fixates on a single sentence while avoiding any of the more difficult aspects of the post. I'm glad to see that you trust the righteous position that you have taken politically to such an extent that you are incapable of defending it at all.

Do you ignore the disadvantaged members of society in the same way? Does that allow you to sleep while you support a political ideology that damages them so much?

[Kalis]

Ah, the Kalis that is such a delight to enter into debate with. That fixates on a single sentence while avoiding any of the more difficult aspects of the post. I'm glad to see that you trust the righteous position that you have taken politically to such an extent that you are incapable of defending it at all.

There were no difficult aspects to your post. Your opening argument was based on a false statement in the second sentence that rendered your entire first paragraph void.



The defecit is going down, slower than they said, but nevertheless it is reducing. Saying the country is "perpetually in deficit" and "in depression" are just wrong.

The second paragraph ignores that the privatisation increased sales revenue by 55% in just three years and made it worth the increased sum to the buyer, it was not worth £800 when it was sold. The UK kept a 20% stake and I cannot see where you are getting the £150m figure from, the FT says £200m + £50m investment.

The third paragraph is just your opinion. Corbyn praised Venezuela as a model, given what happened there and the fact that the shadow Chancellor is a self confessed Marxist whose manifesto is based on an economic model that is clearly faulty, I am not convinced Labour are going to win any argument over "...who is economically capable of running the country".

Do you ignore the disadvantaged members of society in the same way? Does that allow you to sleep while you support a political ideology that damages them so much?

You want British people to relive the 1970s, you are in no position to judge me. I want what is best for the country taking into account the need to balance the economy, defence, etc., I am not interested in ideological purity led by a man with a dubious history.

Corbyn is toxic, McDonnell follows pie-in-the-sky economic ideas and Diane Abbott is a clown, which is not really what I want from a Home Secretary. Emily Thornberry is currently looking good in comparison to the rest of the shadow front bench...Emily bloody Thornberry is their big hitter! That shows a dearth of talent.

[Nigel Tufnel]

A quote from Labour's manifesto, published today:

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Imag...s%20Future.PDF

Labour will make different choices. We will take advantage of near-record low interest rates to create a National Transformation Fund that will invest £250 billion over ten years in upgrading our economy.

I don't know enough about economics to criticise this properly but I do know that Keynes himself said "In the long run we are all dead". And that Keynesian policy primarily focuses on the short term. This worries me.

If anyone wants to enlighten me (without shouting) as to why I shouldn't be worried, feel free.

Separately, from the same document (Tax Measures section) that details how they will afford the £46.8bn of spending commitments:

Allowance made for additional behavioural change and uncertainty, reducing total tax take -3.9 (£bn)

This is after they've

a) Increased corporation tax
b) Increased income tax for the top 5%
c) Introduced the excessive pay levy
etc. etc.

Strikes me as though £3.9 bn doesn't quite cut it.

[Kalis]

Allowance made for additional behavioural change and uncertainty, reducing total tax take -3.9 (£bn)

This is after they've

a) Increased corporation tax
b) Increased income tax for the top 5%
c) Introduced the excessive pay levy
etc. etc.

Strikes me as though £3.9 bn doesn't quite cut it.

The Guardian economics editor, which may be an oxymoron, says...

"Labour has made an allowance of £4bn for possible losses that might occur as a result of behavioural change, but on the side of the ledger has included £6.5bn from a crackdown on tax avoidance – a traditional recourse for politicians seeking to make their sums add up."

The £3.9bn is probably fine, the £6.5bn not so much.

[cubby]

I have a serious question - why can't/won't May initiate a redo on the Brexit referendum? Give the Brits a chance to think some more and then actually vote.