UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[Tinch]

oh, by the way, if there actually were serious problems with the Labour manifesto, the MSM would have torn it apart already. Repeatedly. With headlines every day. The very fact they haven't, and instead have focused on the IRA and all the other nonsense, shows you that it actually makes sense. Feel free to Google for the recent report by 150 economists that support it. Maybe we can drag you up to that first grader level.

The IFS have already said the costings for both parties do not add up and are misleading.

For tax revenue alone the IFS have said Labour would raise something like £10bn less than they are proposing, and even then they were being generous.

[Tinch]

Eh, considering the amounts the manifesto is discussing, that's not a lot.

That was their most generous calculation for the short term (in other words they think it will be even less) and they have said the shortfall will be even worse in the long term.

[Fleuria]

Fucking lolled Boris Johnson had a mediocre TV interview last night where he failed to remember 2 figures and its trending on twitter right now with extreme lefty people raging at him.

Diane Abbott couldn't even remember BASIC anti-terror policies this morning who wants to be home secretary and then all of a sudden she is taken ill and removed off all interview duties. Not even one word of it on twitter can see what fan base takes to twitter for outrage lul.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not to excuse the Labour voters who always praise comrade Corbyn who has done everything he can to throw it all away, I know he's had a good month or two but until that point he's been a joke.

Doesn't excuse the media either which never gave the guy a chance yet gives May a free ride.

He's only had a good month or two because May has been diabolical and on top of that he's U-Turned on a lot of policies to attempt to and appease the public.

[draykorinee]

But BBC Radio 4 Today host Mishal Husain shut down Mr Johnson - by saying even Theresa May had opposed some Labour anti-terror laws.

And she asked how he had voted on the controversial 90-day law.

He replied: "Well, er, there are, there are, of course there are measures I have, er, not supported myself."

Good old Bojo.

- - - Updated - - -

Fucking lolled Boris Johnson had a mediocre TV interview last night where he failed to remember 2 figures and its trending on twitter right now with extreme lefty people raging at him.

Diane Abbott couldn't even remember BASIC anti-terror policies this morning who wants to be home secretary and then all of a sudden she is taken ill and removed off all interview duties. Not even one word of it on twitter can see what fan base takes to twitter for outrage lul.

- - - Updated - - -



He's only had a good month or two because May has been diabolical and on top of that he's U-Turned on a lot of policies to attempt to and appease the public.

He's actually done a good job himself as well and handled question times and debates pretty well, certainly better than May.

[Valerean]

Off you go then. I assume that you are at least as clever as a first grader, so feel free to "tear it apart". Explain the specific aspects of the fully costed manifesto (which includes a buffer between the planned spend and the planned increased tax income, to allow for not getting the full return planned) that are flawed. Explain to the rest of us why we should reject it.

After all, if you are so keen on the Tories winning instead of Labour, shouldn't you do your bit to try and swing a few more voters over to their side? If we are simply using our "wilful ignorance" to ignore these glaring problems, isn't it beholden to you to educate us?

I await your studied and clear explanation of why having a fully costed manifesto is worse than "err, well, we are going to do things. Good things. But we can't tell you what they are. Or what they cost. Except children's breakfasts. We can tell you they will cost 6.8p each a day. And we will take your house if you get sick. Oh wait, not all of your house. Part of it. We just can't say how big a bit. Vote for us and we will sort this all out once we are back in power, then let you know."

oh, by the way, if there actually were serious problems with the Labour manifesto, the MSM would have torn it apart already. Repeatedly. With headlines every day. The very fact they haven't, and instead have focused on the IRA and all the other nonsense, shows you that it actually makes sense. Feel free to Google for the recent report by 150 economists that support it. Maybe we can drag you up to that first grader level.

Ok I'll bite:

Manifesto Costs:

£11.2 Billion - scrap tuition fees.
£6.3 Billion - increase school funding.
£5.3 Billion - increase pre-school funding.
£2.5 Billion - skills investment.
£5.0 Billion - Healthcare.
£2.1 Billion - social care.
£0.3 Billion - State pensions.
£4.0 Billion - social security.
£0.3 Billion - Paternity Pay / Leave.
£6.10 Billion - devolved region funding.
£4.0 Billion - lift public sector pay cap.
£0.3 Billion - hire 10,000 more police.
£0.6 Billion - abolish employment tribunal fees / hire more firefighters and HMRC staff.

£48 Billion - Total.

Paid for by:

£19.4 Billion - hike corporation tax to 26%.
£6.4 Billion - hike income tax for anyone earning >£80k.
£1.3 Billion - payroll tax on companies.
£1.6 Billion - offshore property levy.
£6.5 Billion - tax avoidance crackdown.
£5.6 Billion - hike stamp duty.
£3.8 Billion - scrap corporate tax relief.
£3.7 Billion - hike capital gains tax, inheritance tax, bank levy.
£1.6 Billion - VAT on private school fees.
£2.6 Billion - Various Levies (soft drinks / private healthcare)

£52.5 Billion - Total.

Now, as has already been mentioned, you can basically deduct around £10 Billion from the above revenues - because reality never ever works out the way that manifesto costings say it will. So after applying a £10 Billion "Reality Tax", Labour are planning to spend £48 Billion while raising only £42.5 Billion in revenue (a VERY optimistic figure by the way).

And we haven't even got to the big ticket items yet.

Nationalisations.

£38 Billion - National Grid (based on current market cap).
£60 Billion - Six main regional power and gas networks.
£69 Billion - 32 major water suppliers in England and Wales.
£2.15 Billion - 50.1% stake in Royal Mail.

£169.15 Billion - Total.

Paid for by? Extra extra taxes on The Banksters? Extra extra taxes on Those Tax Dodging Evil Corporations In The City and Their Fatcat Tory Owners?

We could literally write off our defence budget for five consecutive years and STILL not have enough cash to fund this. So how would they pay for it?

They'd have to borrow the money, with consequential effects on the future deficit (which would sky rocket) and the economy as a whole.

And then there's McDonnell's National Investment Bank which would be capitalised by an initial £100 Billion (borrowed), topped up by £150 Billion private capital.

Oh, let's not forget the manifesto's flagship infrastructure package (long term capital spending on things like new railways, energy and broadband) which is set to cost £250 Billion over 10 years.

All of these big ticket items are conveniently uncosted (because there is no realistic way a government would be able to deliver them without MASSIVE borrowing).

And to top it all off here's a quote:

"We are committed to ensuring that the national debt is lower at the end of the next Parliament than it is today."

Lolwut?

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-guide-details

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...bour-manifesto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[draykorinee]

Yeah, theres austerity and then theres just bad financial outlooks. I think Corbyn has gone way over what he should be budgeting for. The Tories ruined our transport systems, I don't think putting them back in to the hands of Labour at the costs associated are enough to fix them. No one cares about the Tories fucking up years ago though, because Corbyn spoke to the IRA decades ago.


Oh wow, check this video out. Partridge eat your heart out.

[Ryme]

oh, by the way, if there actually were serious problems with the Labour manifesto, the MSM would have torn it apart already. Repeatedly. With headlines every day. The very fact they haven't, and instead have focused on the IRA and all the other nonsense, shows you that it actually makes sense.

Think that speaks more to most people not having a clue or any investment in economics; one headline sells to mass market, the other doesn't.

[Fleuria]

Honestly after rereading the Labour manifesto, it's like they are planning to have at least have 10+ years in Government so many of the promises as scheduled between 2020-2030 it's like why even bother including them by that point you could of been removed from Government for doing a disastrous Brexit deal that pisses the public off...

£10 minimum wage is an example scheduled for 2020 but under Tories it'll be £9.50 like why bother the CURRENT living wage is £9.50 probably be like 12 by 2022 or more shit like that needs to be one of their quicker priorities.. but instead they always neglect to say the date.

[alexw]

Ok I'll bite:

Manifesto Costs:

£11.2 Billion - scrap tuition fees.
£6.3 Billion - increase school funding.
£5.3 Billion - increase pre-school funding.
£2.5 Billion - skills investment.
£5.0 Billion - Healthcare.
£2.1 Billion - social care.
£0.3 Billion - State pensions.
£4.0 Billion - social security.
£0.3 Billion - Paternity Pay / Leave.
£6.10 Billion - devolved region funding.
£4.0 Billion - lift public sector pay cap.
£0.3 Billion - hire 10,000 more police.
£0.6 Billion - abolish employment tribunal fees / hire more firefighters and HMRC staff.

£48 Billion - Total.

Paid for by:

£19.4 Billion - hike corporation tax to 26%.
£6.4 Billion - hike income tax for anyone earning >£80k.
£1.3 Billion - payroll tax on companies.
£1.6 Billion - offshore property levy.
£6.5 Billion - tax avoidance crackdown.
£5.6 Billion - hike stamp duty.
£3.8 Billion - scrap corporate tax relief.
£3.7 Billion - hike capital gains tax, inheritance tax, bank levy.
£1.6 Billion - VAT on private school fees.
£2.6 Billion - Various Levies (soft drinks / private healthcare)

£52.5 Billion - Total.

Now, as has already been mentioned, you can basically deduct around £10 Billion from the above revenues - because reality never ever works out the way that manifesto costings say it will. So after applying a £10 Billion "Reality Tax", Labour are planning to spend £48 Billion while raising only £42.5 Billion in revenue (a VERY optimistic figure by the way).

And we haven't even got to the big ticket items yet.

Nationalisations.

£38 Billion - National Grid (based on current market cap).
£60 Billion - Six main regional power and gas networks.
£69 Billion - 32 major water suppliers in England and Wales.
£2.15 Billion - 50.1% stake in Royal Mail.

£169.15 Billion - Total.

Paid for by? Extra extra taxes on The Banksters? Extra extra taxes on Those Tax Dodging Evil Corporations In The City and Their Fatcat Tory Owners?

We could literally write off our defence budget for five consecutive years and STILL not have enough cash to fund this. So how would they pay for it?

They'd have to borrow the money, with consequential effects on the future deficit (which would sky rocket) and the economy as a whole.

And then there's McDonnell's National Investment Bank which would be capitalised by an initial £100 Billion (borrowed), topped up by £150 Billion private capital.

Oh, let's not forget the manifesto's flagship infrastructure package (long term capital spending on things like new railways, energy and broadband) which is set to cost £250 Billion over 10 years.

All of these big ticket items are conveniently uncosted (because there is no realistic way a government would be able to deliver them without MASSIVE borrowing).

And to top it all off here's a quote:

"We are committed to ensuring that the national debt is lower at the end of the next Parliament than it is today."

Lolwut?

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-guide-details

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...bour-manifesto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From my knowledge of economics, if the labour party are planning to take control of monopoly/oligopoly type industries such as utilities then I expect they'll either convert the current shares into bonds whereby shareholders become bondholders so it will cost nothing, or use the central banks ability to create money from nothing. The BoE has printed hundreds of billions of new money like all the other central banks, so this is little different than what is currently going on anyway just the target is different. Indeed it created another 60 billion just last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...od-for-growth/

As for the idea of a national investment bank, I would expect it creates the money for its lending from nothing. All banks do that. Its what happens whenever someone takes out a loan, new money is brought into existence at the moment of loan origination. The base capitalization of the bank could be provided for by either QE or by offering bonds that would earn a return based on the investments the bank makes. I believe Germany has a number of banks at the regional and national level that function like this. For example -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KfW

They channel much needed capital into potential growth industries and play a big part in why Germany's manufacturing base is strong as it is. Current financial sector lending in most nations is dysfunctional, based upon speculative endeavors, and does not properly channel funding into the real economy. Hence I would see something that would move an economy away from such speculation (mostly on asset bubbles, housing being the big one) towards productive enterprise as being an extreme positive.

That's just my 2 cents though.

[rogueMatthias]

From my knowledge of economics, if the labour party are planning to take control of monopoly/oligopoly type industries such as utilities then I expect they'll either convert the current shares into bonds whereby shareholders become bondholders so it will cost nothing, or use the central banks ability to create money from nothing.

Good plan, lets just keep printing more and more money to pay for everything. What could possibly go wrong.

[alexw]

Good plan, lets just keep printing more and more money to pay for everything. What could possibly go wrong.

You do realize if the UK leaves the single market, then you are going to see money printing galore? The UK economy is going to need stabilization to stop an economic meltdown and given that interest rates are already at the zero lower bound and can't really go lower that means money printing as the only way to do it.

And FYI printing money is not necessarily a bad thing. Regular banks do it day in and day out. Every bit of money in your bank account is "printed" from nothing. Its just how the system works.

The issue is not printing money itself but where it goes into the economy and the degree to which printing occurs with respect to the fundamentals of the economy. Thus in a high inflation environment printing money = bad, as the economy will already be close to operating at full capacity and there is a chance of setting off an inflationary spiral. In a low global inflationary environment as the world is in right now that really isn't an issue and what matters more than anything else is where that newly created money goes. Unfortunately the worlds financial systems are extremely dysfunctional and seem only to function to channel new credit into speculative asset bubbles. Its why property markets in the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US are so vastly over-inflated. Banks have been creating new money and just continually pump it into existing property inflating these bubbles and doing absolutely nothing for the real economy. As a result global investment levels in productive business is low which means productivity growth is low and so wage growth low, or, as in many cases, non-existent.

In truth you should stop with the Weimar comparisons. They don't make sense if you understand economics.

[Pann]

And FYI printing money is not necessarily a bad thing. Regular banks do it day in and day out. Every bit of money in your bank account is "printed" from nothing. Its just how the system works.

Regular banks do not print money. Nor is the money in your account "printed from nothing". Central Banks such as The Bank of England can print additional money this is known quantitative easing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

[alexw]

Regular banks do not print money. Nor is the money in your account "printed from nothing". Central Banks such as The Bank of England can print additional money this is known quantitative easing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Yes they do. This is what your own BoE says about the subject.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...eycreation.pdf

• This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.
• Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits.
• The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money

[Pann]

Yes they do. This is what your own BoE says about the subject.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...eycreation.pdf

It appears we are talking about two different things. That is not printing money nor is the money in your account printed from nothing, in most cases it is deposited from another account (such as your employer, etc) where one account is credited with the other being debited. But you are correct that the act of lending does create money within the economy.

[alexw]

It appears we are talking about two different things. That is not printing money nor is the money in your account printed from nothing, in most cases it is deposited from another account (such as your employer, etc) where one account is credited with the other being debited. But you are correct that the act of lending does create money within the economy.

????? And where do you think the money deposited by your employer came from? That money is money which was previously created from nothing and circulated around the economy until it arrived in your employers hands. He or she then transferred it to you.

Indeed if you go back to the pdf I linked this is what it says

broad money is a measure of the total amount of money held by households and companies in the economy. Broad money is made up of bank deposits — which are essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central bank. Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits make up the vast majority — 97% of the amount currently in circulation. And in the modern economy, those bank deposits are mostly created by commercial banks themselves.

Meaning that 97% of the money you or anyone has (everything but coinage and notes) is bank money created from nothing and magicked into existence by those banks. Nothing I have said is incorrect.

[Pann]

????? And where do you think the money deposited by your employer came from? That money is money which was previously created from nothing and circulated around the economy until it arrived in your employers hands. He or she then transferred it to you.

Indeed if you go back to the pdf I linked this is what it says



Meaning that 97% of the money you or anyone has (everything but coinage and notes) is bank money created from nothing and magicked into existence by those banks. Nothing I have said is incorrect.

If you read what I wrote I agreed with you that debt is at the core creating new money. All money at one stage or another was created from nothing however when your employer pays you £1,000 there is not an additional £1,000 in the economy. Whereas if a bank lends you the money an asset and liability for £1,000 are created which as you, correctly, stated increases the amount of money in the economy.

As I said we were talking about two different things which was a result of the use of the words "printing money" when you clarified what you meant I agreed with you.

[Shadowmelded]

May says she also wants to impose controls on terror suspects against whom it is not thought there is enough evidence to bring a prosecution.

She says that, if human rights laws disallow that, she will change those laws.

I guess her hatred of the ECHR extends to non-EU backed human rights as well. Regulate the internet, impose sanctions on people without sufficient evidence, cavalierly change human rights laws, what on earth.

[Deleted]

Diane Abbot leaving the campaign is a good thing, hopefully she leaves politics forever. Corbyn should have ditched her ages ago though.

[Ryme]

Diane Abbot leaving the campaign is a good thing, hopefully she leaves politics forever. Corbyn should have ditched her ages ago though.

It's the single greatest push I've had to vote Labour all campaign, she was absolutely hopeless and regular embarrassment to the party.

[Deleted]

It's the single greatest push I've had to vote Labour all campaign, she was absolutely hopeless and regular embarrassment to the party.

I know a few people who were hesitant about voting labour because of the prospect of her becoming home secretary, wonder if this changed their minds.