UK General Election 2017 - 8 June

[Lewis]

The BBC have got a mini focus group with Labour voters in Bradford, and the non-Asian bloke is actually called 'Dusty Rhodes'.

[Jimmy Floyd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573

What an embarrassing load of core vote wank, or 'the 8% strategy' as I would call it.

[Henry]

My points throughout have been based on the period 2010-2016; that is, the period with a Conservative chancellor and where the rate fell from 28% to what is now 19% (that is, tolerably medium term to overlook the one year comparison with its one off effects / exceptional items which the FT article is predicated on).

Then I need to point out (see the very first graph on the FT times article) that corporate tax revenues had been basically constant during that period, before last years increase.

And I also need to point out that you were referring to business investment resulting from corporate tax cuts, and an associated increase in revenues. Not to income tax or anything else you might like to change the subject to: you said "Companies have used the corporation tax cut to invest in expansion and job creation. It's led to an increase in tax intake."
This manifestly isn't so. What's the explanation? Could you possibly be peddling discredited and simplistic propaganda that serves only the very rich?

As for increases to FDI, I'll just quote you on this - "comparing it to 2008 is a nonsense given everything that happened up until then was built on air. "

[GS]

Then I need to point out (see the very first graph on the FT times article) that corporate tax revenues had been basically constant during that period, before last years increase.

And I also need to point out that you were referring to business investment resulting from corporate tax cuts, and an associated increase in revenues. Not to income tax or anything else you might like to change the subject to: you said "Companies have used the corporation tax cut to invest in expansion and job creation. It's led to an increase in tax intake."
This manifestly isn't so. What's the explanation? Could you possibly be peddling discredited and simplistic propaganda that serves only the very rich?

As for increases to FDI, I'll just quote you on this - "comparing it to 2008 is a nonsense given everything that happened up until then was built on air. "

No, they have not been constant. Net CT has increased from 36.6bn in 2010 to 44.4bn in 2016, as I outlined.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/analyses-of-corporation-tax-receipts-and-liabilities-document-august-2015 - in the attached PDF, figure 1 on page 10.

Yes, I was talking about business investment, including FDI. Both have seen positive trends. I didn't change the subject to income tax, or anything else, rather pointed out the trend that lower rates have brought higher revenues and that a headline CT rate cut doesn't mean you lose all revenue deriving from business (I.e. private sector) as they continue to pay employer NIC and the state takes a chunk of the cash going to an employee they've hired with the cash instead. This is part of looking at taxation holistically - in terms of liabilities and associated tax receipts across a number of areas.

It is, therefore, manifestly true that in the period 2010 to 2016, CT rates were cut and an increase in revenue was noted. It is, further, true that unemployment has drastically reduced in the same period. This suggests the rate cut led to investment in job creation. It is also true that the Tories have provided a significant tax cut to lower earners, and driven higher receipts out of the rich. This additional taxation income from private individuals instead of private enterprise further illustrates that compensating incomes to the exchequer can, and have been, achieved.

I don't want to be unkind, but I'm genuinely not sure you grasp how the taxation system works or how the liabilities are arrived at. You're displaying an unfortunate degree of ignorance here. I don't really want to have to explain the same point three times whilst you claim that a point made to reinforce the argument is somehow changing the topic.

Now, answer the question on Corbyn, McDonnell and their views on the IRA. I'd also like your views on why it is okay that their election campaign will be run by a Stalinist sympathiser.

[Lewis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573

What an embarrassing load of core vote wank, or 'the 8% strategy' as I would call it.

"You should have your say on the Brexit deal in a referendum," he will say. "And if you don't like the deal you should be able to reject it and choose to remain in Europe."

What if I don't want either? Twat.

[Kikó]

"You should have your say on the Brexit deal in a referendum," he will say. "And if you don't like the deal you should be able to reject it and choose to remain in Europe."

What if I don't want either? Twat.

It's where I am on this. How do you actually frame a referendum once a proposed agreement is in place? And do you just keep running them until everyone is in agreement? What about if you agree with some of the agreement but not other parts? Who pays for the constant referenda cycle?

[Lewis]

Plus it would hand even more incentive to the European Union to come up with a shite agreement for us to reject. They should just say either 1) 'Norway Model' mate; or 2) bin the vote. It would at least be honest, and you could even claim the WILL OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE if you won an election off the back of it.

[Henry]

No, they have not been constant. Net CT has increased from 36.6bn in 2010 to 44.4bn in 2016, as I outlined.

Now you're either being dishonest or unable to keep track of the discussion.
To quote my last post, they were "constant during that period, before last years increase."
The FT showed that that increase was not due to extra business investment. Meaning that there was at no point an increase due to business investment.

Claiming that the revenues showed up in income tax (or holistically across all tax revenues instead) is a completely different argument. If you want to switch to that, then fine but it's not "reinforcing" the claim that corporate taxes increased, and it's much more difficult to prove, particularly as you've already noted that the only way was up from 2010 anyway. Show me any source that posits such a relationship.

I mean, this...


It is, therefore, manifestly true that in the period 2010 to 2016, CT rates were cut and an increase in revenue was noted. It is, further, true that unemployment has drastically reduced in the same period. This suggests the rate cut led to investment in job creation.

...is utter nonsense. One thing happening after another thing is not evidence of causality. Everyone knows that unemployment is always "drastically reduced" following a recession. Are you pretending that it would not have fallen without a cut to corporation tax?

And no, I'm not going to talk about the IRA or something else, since that's just an excuse to get away from the lack of justification for your simplistic claim.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's where I am on this. How do you actually frame a referendum once a proposed agreement is in place? And do you just keep running them until everyone is in agreement? What about if you agree with some of the agreement but not other parts? Who pays for the constant referenda cycle?

Surely the question in a second referendum would have to be: ACCEPT or REJECT a deal, with the REJECT option meaning you go back for another deal.

Then you could have a third referendum if there was no deal, going back to LEAVE or REMAIN.

Such a fucking idiot is Farron.

[GS]

Henry, you're not reading the article properly. You're making arguments that they've applied to financial year 2016/17. My points have been on 2010-2016.

The point on business investment, therefore, is somewhat moot. The 2% decrease noted therein would appear to relate to 2016 - calendar year, not financial year. Therefore nine months in the last FY and mostly in the run up to and aftermath of the referendum. I would suggest that as a key reason for any temporary slowing.

:wall:

[Henry]

You're making arguments that they've applied to financial year 2016/17. My points have been on 2010-2016.

And again, their first graph shows corporate tax revenue from that period. It was flat until 2016, despite the rate cut. Are you not seeing that?

[phonics]

Ms May said she was "very happy" to "endorse" Mr Hammond but shied away from saying she would keep him in post.


She added: "We’ve worked together over the years for many years, longer than we could care to identify. That’s an age-related comment, nothing else, just in case you try and relate anything into that."

She's so crap at this sort of stuff. She's clearly politically aware enough but when she does the 'HERE IS CLARITY PLEASE DO NOT MISCONTRUE' ends up sounding so desperate, like the other day when she felt the need to tell us that her dish washer was a machine and not a live-in slave.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Despite being an awful hag of a woman, as PM she's growing on me a bit. She is much more representative of how people think than a braying twat like Cameron.

[Lewis]

That might explain why the Twitter SEETHE seems so much more intense with her. It was almost too easy to mock him.

[Kikó]

Surely the question in a second referendum would have to be: ACCEPT or REJECT a deal, with the REJECT option meaning you go back for another deal.

Then you could have a third referendum if there was no deal, going back to LEAVE or REMAIN.

Such a fucking idiot is Farron.

And then we vote to leave again and we can have another referendum about the type of brexit people want.

FOREVER.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yep. Scotland has to have an independence referendum after all of those as well.

[GS]

And again, their first graph shows corporate tax revenue from that period. It was flat until 2016, despite the rate cut. Are you not seeing that?

I'm seeing it, but again this shows your wholly superficial understanding. You need to look at the hard data, not the line of one graph in one article. You need to consider the difference between onshore and offshore, and also payments made v liabilities incurred. If you want to be very accurate, figures for CT payments are thus for onshore:

2010: 31.6bn
2011: 36.2bn
2012: 34.3bn
2013: 36.0bn
2014: 36.8bn
2015: 40.9bn
2016: 43.9bn

Increase for onshore only: £12.3bn (+38.9%)

Offshore only:
2010: 5.0bn
2011: 6.9bn
2012: 8.8bn
2013: 4.4bn
2014: 3.6bn
2015: 2.1bn
2016: 0.5bn

Decrease for offshore only: (£4.5bn)

Total:
2010: 36.6bn
2011: 43.0bn
2012: 43.1bn
2013: 40.5bn
2014: 40.3bn
2015: 43.0bn
2016: 44.4bn

Increase for all: +7.8bn (21.2%).

Offshore has struggled, understandably, given the oil price collapse and lack of profitability of north sea oil fields in the face of the Saudis pumping it onto the market to undermine American shale. For onshore, despite a headline cut from 28% to 19%, receipts still went up by almost 39% for those 'revenue' streams.

[Henry]

It has nothing to do with superficiality, and everything to do with examining what you said, rather than what you wished you'd said. Your claims weren't about onshore revenues, they were about revenues in general.

And whereas you're perfectly willing to dismiss the drop on one set of figures due to extraneous factors, you'll seize on the set where you find an increase and just as quickly dismiss those factors - despite the huge elephant in the room that they were starting from recession-levels and could only go up. At this point you're going to have to provide some evidence that the increase (any increase, since you keep switching the one that you're talking about) was related to the rate cut. Otherwise you're just arguing from a conclusion.

Here (https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9207) is a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (again, part of the neoliberal establishment) which concludes the obvious that the rates being cut led to lower revenues than would otherwise have been obtained.


Corporate tax receipts as a share of national income are set to be at the same level in 2020–21 as they were in 2010–11. This is not evidence that cuts to corporation tax rates have not reduced revenues. Instead, it reflects the effect of other factors, including the ongoing recovery of financial sector (and other) profits following the Great Recession. Corporation tax receipts are forecast to be 2.3% of national income by 2021–22, substantially below the pre-recession high of 3.2%.

You have an ideological commitment to the Reagan-Thatcher idea of the job creators unshackled by the burden of taxation, unleashing their resources. You are declaring this to be a great truth, denigrating anyone who doesn't accept it uncritically, and then when challenged, scrabbling around desperately for some half-assed correlation which you can, using whatever logical fallacies are required, twist into some sort of justification.

[GS]

No, the issue is that you don't understand the topic. I didn't change the topic, nor did I change the parameters therein. I simply provided further detail and expanded the supporting argument. The onshore / offshore was worthwhile highlighting in the context of explaining the increase you denied point blank existed. It provided context and, in my view, supported the argument further particularly with reference to global trends in oil.

You're just being dense. You've yet to offer a single substantive point.

"This article explains there's a big increase so ha!"
"That's the wrong financial year, Henry."
"Oh. But the graph! It's flat!"
"Here's the hard data showing that's not the case for the reference period, Henry."
"You've shown onshore! You never mentioned that before!"
"It's the same healing figures with further context to support the argument, Henry."
"Tory! Tory!"

How fucking dull. We'll end the discussion there, since you'd argue that black was white on this.

When you're ready to justify supporting an IRA apologist, you can explain why. Until then, you'd be best refraining from moralising given you have to adhere to a particularly unpleasant moral bankruptcy to overlook it and pretend it never happened.

[Henry]

This is an interesting pathology. We go from simplistic propaganda and sneering at anyone who doesn't swallow it whole, to abandoning the discussion as "dull" whenever someone doesn't just revert to trading insults and challenges the detail.

Your original claim was that the cut to corporate taxes had led to increased revenues.
There was no such increase from 2010-2015.
There was an increase in 2016 but this was for other reasons, fully understood.
This being pointed out, you've variously tried to switch your claim to income tax, FDI and to onshore corporate tax receipts.
These things are expected to increase in the aftermath of a recession, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there's been a decrease in what was expected due to cuts.
So you've offered no evidence whatsoever linking a cut in corporate tax rates to increased investment.

It's appallingly obvious that you've got an ideological position and are sticking to that, whatever reality might say. It's pretty much a religious faith for you.

[GS]

This is an interesting pathology. We go from simplistic propaganda and sneering at anyone who doesn't swallow it whole, to abandoning the discussion as "dull" whenever someone doesn't just revert to trading insults and challenges the detail.

Your original claim was that the cut to corporate taxes had led to increased revenues. It has, as I've outlined about eight times now. I honestly don't understand how you can be so dense as to deny that 44.4 is a bigger number than 36.6
There was no such increase from 2010-2015. 43.0bn in FY15 versus 36.6bn in FY10. My understanding is that 43.0 is bigger than 36.6.
There was an increase in 2016 but this was for other reasons, fully understood. Your article link based its analysis on FY17 receipts, and can't be extrapolated back to FY16.
This being pointed out, you've variously tried to switch your claim to income tax, FDI and to onshore corporate tax receipts. There was no "switch". I highlighted that CT rates were cut and yet revenue increased during the period when Osborne was Chancellor. You rejected this, despite it being fucking obviously correct. The points regarding income tax and FDI were supporting the argument regarding other positive benefits (indirect) that are generated from a cut in the CT rate. As I've explained twice already, I did not change my position to argue about onshore revenue streams. I outlined that there were two elements to CT rates, these being onshore and offshore. Offshore decreased, onshore increased. Net effect is that total tax revenues increased, as outlined eight times. You can fucking see the figures about four posts up.
These things are expected to increase in the aftermath of a recession, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there's been a decrease in what was expected due to cuts.
So you've offered no evidence whatsoever linking a cut in corporate tax rates to increased investment.

It's appallingly obvious that you've got an ideological position and are sticking to that, whatever reality might say. It's pretty much a religious faith for you.

I'm genuinely flummoxed here. You're arguing that black is white, and have apparently not fully grasped that you're looking at incorrect financial years, that onshore revenues are a component of the full CT revenues (the point standing on the latter irrespective of the additional detail provided to aid your understanding) and to continue asserting that there was no increase noted despite the data being in front of you directly contradicting your claim.

If you want to argue about the merits of the cut in FY11-FY16 and the reasons for the increase in CT (aggregated), then fine. But that is absolutely impossible if you continue to assert factual untruths.

[GS]

Yep. Scotland has to have an independence referendum after all of those as well.

It's an illogical position. I think there was a spell immediately after the vote where a significant minority of the hardcore Remain vote thought it might be over-turned / ignored / somehow discredited to stop it happening. May going full throttle finishes it, so he can call for another referendum now knowing full well it's never going to happen. It's just a campaign strategy to try and steal Continuity Remain but it's looking like a terrible strategy the more it plays out.

He's just delivered the manifesto with an EU flag on the stage and equated the highly-popular Theresa May to Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. The imagery is terrible, really. Joe Public aren't exactly going to love the idea that there's a party who seemingly want the EU to succeed before the UK does.

I reckon they're going to lose seats next month, never mind win them.

[Jimmy Floyd]

They'll win back Bermondsey & OS, Cambridge for sure. Maybe a couple in Scotland. Probably hit about 12-15.

[Lewis]

Nick Clegg has to be in serious trouble, seeing as he only remained (arf) last time because of borrowed Conservative votes, and Norman Lamb must be bricking it with all the Norfolk leave nutters.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I think Cleggers might be alright. Norman Lamb has probably had it unless he has the mythical 'personal vote' up there.

I've noticed, looking at a lot of these seats, that UKIP do/did much better in the eastern half of the country (all the way up) than they do/did in the western half. I wonder what the historical reason for that is. Hanseatic League truthers? Viking raid anxiety?

[Lewis]

Because the electorate is Essex Man, seaside towns, and the sort of people who make their own sausages. Proper ones at that. Not ones that taste of things. Outside of Norwich and Cambridge it's an absolute ponce-free zone.

[Jimmy Floyd]

This Cricking is quite good: https://www.channel4.com/news/farron-told-your-economic-plans-are-dependent-on-people-smoking-cannabis

Farron is so bad at politics, strategically doesn't have a fucking clue. He needed to move into Blair territory and adopt some broad tropes of the Regressive Majority, even if that risked making Dr Evan Harris cry at dinner. Instead he's just doubled down on what Charles Kennedy was doing about 20 years ago, but with none of the charm or know-how.

[GS]

Past leaders going into polling day have had a bit of national clout, but half the country doesn't know who he is and those who do think he's shit. Clegg got a lot of help with the first TV debate suddenly catapulting him into the stratosphere, though.

The coalition has clearly ruined the Lib Dem brand, perhaps for another ten or fifteen years. It's a bit difficult to sweep up the student / progressive anti-Tory votes after you've hiked tuition fees and gone into coalition with the Tories. Our own Lib Dem contingent never recovered from the very act of forming the coalition in the first place.

The Tories are apparently going heavy on Farron's seat.

[Lewis]

I always lol when I hear the tuition fees BROKEN PROMISE being used as a reason not to trust the Liberal Democrats, as if they are the only people to have ever gone back on a manifesto pledge. Oh well. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

[GS]

I think it carries weight because it was a significant part of their 2010 offer, with a heavy vote amongst students. It's not as if they didn't implement the PROMISE, they actively did the complete opposite to the tune of trebling it to mightily aggrieve a significant chunk of their core vote already REELING from the coalition in the first place.

They deserve to be annihilated, anyway. Sanctimonious bastards.

[niko_cee]

That Northern Ireland bit on Newsnight was a bit special, with added comedy lighting. Quite liked the UUP chap making a bid for Irish unification the other way. The biggest Brexit lols are definitely to be had over there.

[GS]

Our political parties have collectively shit the bed over it. The political discourse has been absolutely dreadful, although that's hardly an exception.

I've reached a point where I want the local assembly to be shut down permanently and direct rule resumed. They shouldn't be allowed to earn a living here.

[Lewis]

I think I asked this before, but if you devolved significant powers (education, health) to actual local government, would the terrorists be open to shutting the assembly down and reverting to direct rule? You would think they would jump at the opportunity to run their own little areas.

[GS]

The IRA aren't interested in local government any more, at least not seriously. The long-term plan has been to get into government in both north and south at the same time, to demonstrate credibility and, if you're in power on both sides of the border, ease the path to unification. Their big problem in the south has been their IRA connections, so they needed the credibility of working in government up here to show that they weren't just a collection of terrorists-turned-politicians and were serious.

The issue for them, in terms of the constitution, is that if people are happy with the status quo then they're not going to vote for unification - because why would you. They seem to have realised this. They've "made it work" for ten years, giving them credibility. Now they can collapse it, claim "the north" is being shafted and other solutions must be looked at. Other solutions meaning a border poll and unification.

It doesn't really matter what you offer them at this point, they'll continue to game it in their long-term interest of breaking the country apart.

[Boydy]

I think they're trying to do the opposite of breaking the country apart.

[GS]

Belfast would go up in flames if there was a vote for unification by a 51-49 margin. Even the prospect of holding a border poll (which they wouldn't win) is fucking terrifying.

[Boydy]

It might even be 52-48. It'd be THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE then.

[GS]

As if it would be remotely comparable.

[Lewis]

Remain terrorism would be pretty amazing. Manbag bombs left in roadside cafes and newsagents. A. C. Grayling on hunger strike. Tim Farron doing his shuffling 'just don't shove it down my throat' routine for each new atrocity.

'But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and a subtitled film in the other, we remain an open, tolerant nation?'

[Boydy]

I was thinking the other day, there's no good left wing 'terrorists' about any more.

[Lewis]

The Ulster Covenant transfers over a bit too perfectly for leavers as well.

[Jimmy Floyd]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmorland_and_Lonsdale_(UK_Parliament_constituen cy)

I just wonder whether this one will be close, but I imagine he'll hold on unless Mr Fishfinger splits his vote.

[Spikey M]

Is someone standing in for Tezza May tonight? Or is it going to be a Labour vs Lib Dem vs Green bore off?

[niko_cee]

Labour aren't participating either, so it's going to be a record low viewing figure for a primetime terrestrial tv event.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Corbz isn't going either (rightly). It's just SNP, Lib Dems, UKIP, the Greens and the Welsh.

Farron yet again massive error going on and reducing the Lib Dems to the level of the other listed bitters. His campaign is one of the most incompetent I can remember. Jezza/Milne donning it in comparison.

[Kikó]

The Standard say Labour up by 8 points so the GAP with the cruel and evil tories is only 15 points now.

Jezzalution is on.

[Spikey M]

Lulz. Fuck watching that then.

[GS]

Corbz isn't going either (rightly). It's just SNP, Lib Dems, UKIP, the Greens and the Welsh.

Farron yet again massive error going on and reducing the Lib Dems to the level of the other listed bitters. His campaign is one of the most incompetent I can remember. Jezza/Milne donning it in comparison.

If it wasn't for nationalism, four of those parties would pretty much be saying the exact same thing as well. He's not going to be able to distinguish the message, unless it's a case of trying to out-outrage the others on UKIP.

I'm sure I saw one of the Lib Dem policies was for TV debates to be "mandatory". The state of it.

[phonics]

Lol at the Conservatives social care program for the elderly. Labour should just lead with 'We're demonised for wanting to nationalise public infrastructure, the Tories want to nationalise your nans house'

[Spikey M]

Fuck old people*. The sooner they carc it at sto hoarding the houses they bought for 50p the better.

Take that which ever way you wish.

[phonics]

Whats the argument against the debates at this point? You could say 'This isn't America, we aren't electing a president' but then Theresa May is going up and down the country in a bus emblazoned with 'Theresa May for Britain' that doesn't even mention she's a member of the Conservative Party so that argument's out the window.

1/5th of the country watched the debates the first time round so surely that's a good thing?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Both the presidential thing (regardless of how individual candidates choose to campaign, we do NOT have a presidential system) and also it takes an unwarranted amount of attention away from actual campaigning. The whole thing is a horror show, spin doctors in the briefing room afterwards, everyone focused on spun out lines and who 'won' (no one ever wins) rather than actual issues.

Debates are television entertainment only, they have nothing to do with politics.

[phonics]

How does it take unwarranted attention away from campaigning? And what does it lose anyway, a good 90% of the country will never see or attend a political campaign rally/event.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You're setting the campaign up to be a pre-scripted soundbite fest on telly instead of anything that involves interaction with voters.

The clamour for them as far as I can see is entirely from SW1 media whose interests it most serves.

[phonics]

The strong and stable campaign sponsored by Theresa May for Britain would be reduced to meaningless soundbites? Can't have that, it'd destroy democracy.

[GS]

The short answer is that we're a parliamentary system. You vote for a party on the basis of a manifesto.

You can "vote for Theresa May" if you want, but that's not how it works.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You're only saying that because (like me) you're a politics nerd who obsessively follows every story. To everyone else that stuff is mood music at best. They'll pick up their dosage via a (relatively) third party reporter in the paper or on TV news who will present both sides, unless it's the Sun/Mirror in which case lol. TV debates are propaganda straight to the people, backed up by more propaganda in the spin room.

[GS]

The new Ipsos poll is hilarious. Tories on 49 (-), Labour 34 (+8), Lib Dem 7 (-6), Green 3 (+2), UKIP 2 (-2).

Seven percent. Two percent.

[phonics]

You're only saying that because (like me) you're a politics nerd who obsessively follows every story. To everyone else that stuff is mood music at best. They'll pick up their dosage via a (relatively) third party reporter in the paper or on TV news who will present both sides, unless it's the Sun/Mirror in which case lol. TV debates are propaganda straight to the people, backed up by more propaganda in the spin room.

There isn't a paper in the land that does actual both sides reporting though is there.

[Jimmy Floyd]

From the last election totals, that is:

Con 49 (+13), Lab 34 (+4), LD 7 (-1), UKIP 2 (-11)

Labour are getting fucking slaughtered.

[GS]

Yep. Seven percent means the Tory/LD swings are safe, with potential for gain. Eating the UKIP vote puts plenty of Con/Lab marginals into the Tory column in England.

With gains in Scotland, it could be a massacre.

[GS]

There's a line in the Tory manifesto that they're going to scrap the FTPA. :cool:

It's almost like the Lib Dems never existed.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yep. Seven percent means the Tory/LD swings are safe, with potential for gain. Eating the UKIP vote puts plenty of Con/Lab marginals into the Tory column in England.

With gains in Scotland, it could be a massacre.

There are a lot of Labour held seats where the Labour vote could hold steady (personally I doubt it will) but the MPs will just get washed away by the 2015 kippers crossing over to blue en masse. UKIP aren't even standing in a lot of these seats.

Particuarly up north.

[Reg]

My GP friend has a very low opinion of how the Tories have dealt with the NHS (does anyone in public services have good things to say about them?). He sees it going down the road of heavy privatisation, starting with paying a fiver to see your GP, and eventually everyone needing insurance.

[Offshore Toon]

I was chatting to a doctor in February and I thought he was gonna cry when I brought up the NHS.

[Spikey M]

I liked the debates last time, but the 'This isn't America' argument holds up pretty well for me. Look at the shambles that US politics is. Shouting matches and one-upmanship wins out over reasoned policy statements every time. I for one am not ready for Prime Minister Piers Morgan.

[phonics]

Mate, have you seen PMQs?

[Spikey M]

It's not a debate on prime time TV with the aim of winning votes in an up and coming election. It's also nothing compared to some of the stuff that went on in the Presidential run in.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The 2015 debates were tragic. The seven way one was balls, and the one where Dave and Ted Miliband went up consecutively in front of a 'town hall' audience (fuck off again, Uncle Sam) was an atrocity. Mainly because of 'Hell yeah I'm ready!'

2010 ones were fun but mainly because of the novelty factor.

[Reg]

Whether they're good or not, they do have an affect.

The 2010 ones were really interesting, I thought. But that was the first general election I was allowed to vote, which probably helped.

[GS]

They were interesting because of the aftermath. The first one was, anyway. By the second and third, they'd started to handle it better. The parties hadn't a clue how to handle it at the first debate, so you had Cameron embarrass himself with transparent anecdotes, Brown seething at Clegg for not just joining Labour to form a progressive alliance, and Clegg basking in publicity that Cameron should never have agreed to.

The fallout, such as it was, was great as well in terms of the Lib Dem vote.

Last time out the parties were wise to it, which is why Cameron refused to participate until there were so many people that it was a complete waste of time. You'll never have it be anything other than a painfully scripted, damage limitation exercise.

[Lewis]

Yep. Seven percent means the Tory/LD swings are safe, with potential for gain. Eating the UKIP vote puts plenty of Con/Lab marginals into the Tory column in England.

With gains in Scotland, it could be a massacre.

It also means that the left-left will interpret this as the platform for at least another crack, and possibly an even more leftist approach in future. If they can get closer to 2005 than 2015 the lines write themselves. :drool:

[Lewis]

This Green Party broadcast is seriously the worst ever. What were they doing?

[Jimmy Floyd]

This debate is seriously embarrassing for everyone concerned. Grotesque incompetence from Sturgeon and Farron to take part (the others have nothing to lose).

[GS]

The media on Twitter are incredulous that May didn't turn up. It's great.

[Waffdon]

Sturgeon would eat May alive.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Sturgeon has fucked up massively with her second referendum pledge and knows it. Scottish nationalism is over as of a month's time.

[GS]

Their position is a complete mess. The numbers simply aren't there, and it's actually quite likely that there won't be a pro-independence majority in the Scottish parliament after 2021 either.

They've been trying to row back on it, but the Tory SURGE is important because it makes it very difficult for Sturgeon's "the Tories don't have a mandate in Scotland" to hold.

I saw earlier, in true Judean People's Front fashion, that there's now a Scottish Referendum Party because the SNP aren't pushing for it with enough gusto. You couldn't make it up.

[John]

I saw earlier, in true Judean People's Front fashion, that there's now a Scottish Referendum Party because the SNP aren't pushing for it with enough gusto. You couldn't make it up.

There have been various independence parties popping up for a while now. My favourite is RISE, standing for 'Respect Independence Socialism Environmentalism'. They got about a thousand votes across the country in the last election, despite standing someone in every seat in Scotland, and have since become a truly hilarious circus.


In September 2016, RISE announced plans to make politics more accessible, including regular political-themed dance club events and a new website.

[Lewis]

lol at '#IAgreeWithTim' being tweeted by about a dozen fannies.

[GS]

lol at '#IAgreeWithTim' being tweeted by about a dozen fannies.

The Lib Dems are in serious trouble as a 'brand'. Farron would need to go after the election if their performance is as the polls currently suggest - the big strategic decisions have been his.

[John]

There was a question about political party leaders born in the 20th century on Pointless earlier. Farron was a pointless answer.

[GS]

Sounds about right.

It'd end up being Clegg again, which would be amazing.

[GS]

Comrade Dacre doing his part to crush the saboteurs.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAI52bTXUAAq9Yr.jpg

[Jimmy Floyd]

Sturmbannführer Dunt was saying earlier how everyone seems to have shifted economically left and culturally right. No, mate, you've just finally looked up from your mocha latte.

[GS]

People have only been 'culturally left' because Blairism ultimately sought to shame them into being so.

[niko_cee]

Classic QT moment with Labour lady lambasting the Tories for cutting winter fuel allowance (for rich pensioners) only to be told by Dimbers that that very pledge was in the 2015 Labour Manifesto. Where do they find these idiots?

[Magic]

Probably a Tory councillor in disguise.

[GS]

"Kez" suspended nine Labour councillors for forming a coalition with the Tories in Aberdeen, which is the whole point of local government.

[Lewis]

I lol when people pretend she isn't useless because they need all the prominent not Jezza bodies they can find.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Thank god for Lord Portillo, perfect antidote to QT.

[GS]

Only 1.66m bothered to watch last night.

Hopefully that finished them.

[phonics]

I'm voting Tory because I think it's our responsibility to eliminate the deficit by *checks notes* 2015... Wait no, *scribbles* 2017? Not buying it? How about 2020? Alright fuck off then, 2025 it is.

Wait I just saw the internet part of the manifesto. Fuck me. Mon Jez. Although reporting Magics posts here to PoPo could be a laugh?

[Lewis]

The reaction to means testing the winter fuel allowance is about as intelligent as could be expected. Labour have gone with 'sick and sneaky', where as the SNP have called it 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', which is sort of the entire basis of taxation. Tim Farron also said something but nobody was there to hear it.

[Offshore Toon]

The Greens are running away with it here with the Tories in second and Labour's 20yo gimp in third. I'm in a tricky position here because I want to support Corbs, but at the same time I don't want to support this 20yo nonce.

[Offshore Toon]

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5911d1c617000020005a58d9.png

I'm not voting for that. Fuck sake.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Why would you put him forward as a prospective MP? He must know zero about anything. Caroline Lucas may be wrong about everything but at least there's the base knowledge and experience.

[Offshore Toon]

What makes it worse is that the Greens pulled out of Brighton Kemptown so Labour could have a clean run at the Conservatives, and in return asked Labour to do the same in Brighton Pavillion. Labour told them to go fuck themselves (which is fair enough) but then they put forward this bloke? Ridiculous.

[phonics]

By the way, if the Tories did get through their proposed internet bill and what happened with Smiffy last week happened, this site would be shut down and one or more of us would have been under arrest. As he claims he reported posts from here to the Police and they could take the view that it was harassing the mentally ill. At the moment they don't have the power to do that unless you explicitly stated his full name, address and threatened to murder him.

It's an absolute nightmare of a law before you even get to the other stuff.

[GS]

To be fair, it's sometimes difficult to get non-embarrassing sacrificial lambs for seats you haven't a hope of winning.

[Henry]

Wait. Having declared that he wouldn't respond any further, it seems that you did.


It has, as I've outlined about eight times now. I honestly don't understand how you can be so dense as to deny that 44.4 is a bigger number than 36.6

No such denial was made and you're being very slippery. The £36.6 billion figure is from 2009-2010 and obviously not what I'm including when I talk about 2010-2016.
The relevant figures are as follows.

2010-11: £43 billion
2011-12: £43 billion
2012-13: £40 billion
2013-14: £40 billion
2014-15: £43 billion
2015-16: £44 billion

That's statistically flat. There was no increase in that period.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548398/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2016_FINAL.pdf

Of course, one might have expected an increase as the economy was still recovering from recession. But as the IFS argues, even that didn't happen since the rate cut led to lower revenues that otherwise expected. So trying to interpret flatlining reciepts during a period of economic recovery as vindication for the Laffer Curve is just ludicrous.
It's actually worthy of a Marxist - rigid adherence to simplistic models in the face of whatever evidence exists.
(Contrary to what you might think, I detest Marxism for this very reason. Many neoliberals started off as Marxists before switching sides.)

[GS]

I'm afraid this comes back to you not understanding the difference between financial year and calendar year, what should be considered "base year" for comparative analysis, and time lag in the payment of CT across different financial (not calendar) years.

[Lewis]

By the way, if the Tories did get through their proposed internet bill and what happened with Smiffy last week happened, this site would be shut down and one or more of us would have been under arrest. As he claims he reported posts from here to the Police and they could take the view that it was harassing the mentally ill. At the moment they don't have the power to do that unless you explicitly stated his full name, address and threatened to murder him.

It's an absolute nightmare of a law before you even get to the other stuff.

He's banned now so whatever.

[Henry]

It certainly does come back to you wanting to bog the discussion down in irrelevant minutiae and accountancy jargon as a get-out from addressing the economics.

[phonics]

Was talking about the election to a friend last night, I reminded him he needed to re-register at the new address. He'd completely forgot. Told me he was voting Tory 2 minutes later. Fucked it.

[GS]

It certainly does come back to you wanting to bog the discussion down in accountancy jargon as a get-out from addressing the economics.

No, it really doesn't. '2010' does not mean FY11. If you're analysing the conservative record, you don't do it from FY11. You do it from FY10, being the last financial year under Labour and owing to the emergency budget Osborne presented in June 2010 which cut headline rates and thus already effective for most of FY11.

You do it because payment regimes mean that large companies are paying half their estimated tax burden in their own financial year owing to the quarterly payment system, and small companies have nine months grace after the end of their accounting period - so the effect with large companies was immediate in the payment schemes.

A better measure, frankly, is liabilities incurred in the year. The latest available data is for 2014/15. Total liabilities in FY10 were 38.4bn versus 43.7bn in FY15. Excluding offshore as being due to global trends in the oil market, it was 32.9bn versus 41.2bn.

You simply can't discuss it without some recourse to accounting jargon, and understanding liability versus payment, payment schedules, periods of impact, and periods of accounting relative to the tax year.

If you want to discuss the mitigating reasons why a tax cut led to an increase up to FY16, fine. If you want to complain that there was some flat lining during the period under discussion before further increase was noted through compensating volume of taxable profit, fine.

What you can't do is set an arbitrary start date for the discussion of the Tory record, use incorrect terminology to refer to those years, deny the relevance of the onshore/offshore segmentation, and then try and pretend that the introduction of additional detail and analyses is, somehow, changing the subject. What you also can't do is deny the data is fundamentally showing what it shows.

I don't blame you for not being up to speed on the intricacies of the tax system, because I can't imagine it's particularly interesting to non-accountants, but you are literally wasting your time here.

I note again, as I did at the beginning of the discussion, that I don't favour cliff edge decreases. Volume can't replace lost revenue overnight. However, this has been a moderate, staged decrease over the medium term which has generated activity and thus compensating volume.

[Yevrah]

I've booked the Friday morning off.

Just deciding on the snacks.

[phonics]

lol

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAMkK-rW0AAD3JU.jpg:large

[7om]

Just read the summary of the Conservative manifesto and feel disappointed they've decided to include students in the immigration numbers. It's something I was really hoping they wouldn't do and they've also specifically come out and said they expect foreign students to leave unless they can match even higher requirements. The standards for getting a visa after graduation were ridiculous before so it's pretty sad that they're basically going to push skilled kids that they've spent years educating straight out the door.

It's a shame, because I've seen the US system and it's very easy for foreign students to stay here after graduation.

[Henry]

'2010' does not mean FY11.

Nor did I claim that it did. It was a shorthand reference to a part of the graph from 2010-2015 which is statistically flat, and which I present again.
There was no reason for you to seize on the figures for financial year 2010 other than to sidetrack things.

https://i.imgur.com/5RRcFto.png


If you're analysing the conservative record, you don't do it from FY11. You do it from FY10, being the last financial year under Labour and owing to the emergency budget Osborne presented in June 2010 which cut headline rates and thus already effective for most of FY11.

You'd like that, since it again ignores the recession/recovery dynamic. Why not compare it to the long-term trend, or the pre-recession figure? Why cherry-pick the one year that there'd been a sudden drop, which you'd expect to be followed by an increase? Are you actually claiming that there'd have been no economic recovery if it wasn't for the corporate tax cut?


this has been a moderate, staged decrease over the medium term which has generated activity and thus compensating volume.

This is a significant climb-down, and it's still unsubstantiated.
Your claim was not "compensating volume". Your claim was an increase in revenue due to investment.
Nevertheless, the IFS don't agree that this happened. They state that there were lower revenues than otherwise would have been taken. Why?
And where's your evidence that there was extra investment due to the cut at all? When was the investment and why were revenues flat throughout the staged decreases?

These questions have been open for several posts now, but all I'm getting is irrelevancy of various kinds.

EDIT: Oh wait, missed this.


there was some flat lining during the period under discussion before further increase was noted through compensating volume of taxable profit

:lol:

We established right at the start that there were one-off effects responsible for the increase in 2016 and that business investment decreased that year. Now you're back to pretending this fits within your model of increased investment.
Jesus.

[Lewis]

This Twitter campaign to ring your nan and gently explain to her why she should vote Labour is lol. The SEETHE when the landslide comes is going to break records.

[GS]

Henry - your 2016 is FY17 i.e. not FY16. So no, that's a factual misrepresentation AGAIN. FY10 is the base because it had no Conservative stewardship / Tory policy implemented at all, AGAIN. This isn't fucking difficult. Are you honestly not grasping this?

My claim was increased revenue through volume of taxable profit generated, this being the obvious end result of investment to begin with. Otherwise why on earth would anybody invest anything for growth. This is so basic that it shouldn't require being spelt out.

This is really going to have to finish here, because there's only so many times that such things can be pointed out.

[7om]

This Henry - GS argument is still going? Fucking hell :D

[GS]

This Henry - GS argument is still going? Fucking hell :D

He can't understand the basics of tax years, and what applies when.

[Henry]

Henry - your 2016 is FY17 i.e. not FY16. So no, that's a factual misrepresentation AGAIN. FY10 is the base because it had no Conservative stewardship / Tory policy implemented at all, AGAIN. This isn't fucking difficult. Are you honestly not grasping this?

The way this works is not that you declare things, for others to "grasp". I explained why that ought not to be the base several times now. There. Was. A. Recession.
And once again, I'm not interested in what financial year it was. There was no increase due to extra business investment in that year, and you've failed to produce evidence of it for any other year either.


My claim was increased revenue through volume of taxable profit generated, this being the obvious end result of investment to begin with. Otherwise why on earth would anybody invest anything for growth. This is so basic that it shouldn't require being spelt out.

It's "basic" according to the idiotic model that you're determined to hold to. In the real world, what appears to have happened is that rates were cut and extra cash was collected by shareholders at the expense of the exchequer. Who the fuck knows what they did with it? Probably bought themselves some more yachts.

[Baz]

This is so basic that it shouldn't require being spelt out.
...
This is really going to have to finish here, because there's only so many times that such things can be pointed out.
http://37.media.tumblr.com/01e93ce99990f55a19014d29ee60d7d6/tumblr_n3so484Aq41tp719lo1_500.gif

[GS]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAM4ztTXsAAkXsr.jpg

It must be seriously depressing if you live in Glasgow.

[Henry]

I've just seen it an four of the five points in the UKIP party political broadcast are designed to appeal to racists.

[GS]

865855583022460929

Progressive.

[Lewis]

lol at the 'but universality' arguments in the replies. Flat tax then lads yeah?

[Lewis]

Elsewhere:

https://s1.postimg.org/63nti2xrj/DARK-d0_Ws_AAu_Ah_H.jpg

Have you seen the news recently mates?

[John]

Is that Vince Cable looking incredibly pleased with his photoshopping?

[Shindig]

Vince 'The Power' Cable is literally the only way my brain can process that man's name.

[Disco]

Is that Vince Cable looking incredibly pleased with his photoshopping?

Also shown are the four and a half Lib Dem voters left in the country.

[GS]

Vince got into a dreadful muddle on the idea of a second referendum the other night. I actually quite like him, so it's a shame to see it.

[GS]

lol at the 'but universality' arguments in the replies. Flat tax then lads yeah?

The Huffington Post has focus groups which suggest that Lab/Con swing voters are fully behind means testing the fuel payment and school meals, and also think that free tuition is bollocks.

250 seat majority. :nodd:

[Lewis]

The professional (middle class) left are probably more out of touch with their supposed base on benefits/welfare than they are on immigration. They could pander to what they perceive as racism as they really had to, but the idea that working class people don't consider a universal welfare state the be all and end all seems to cause them serious discomfort.

[GS]

It's because they patronise them, and think that their base's goal in life should be to be more like them.

[GS]

Wobble weekend just in time for the postal votes.

It's perfect timing, because it makes the "he really could win" argument appear credible.

[Magic]

Corbz taking the stage at a Libertines gig. :cool:

[Lewis]

'I know you came here tonight to watch a group torn apart by its idiotic leader and trading on former glories, but in three weeks time...'

[Lewis]

https://andrewgilliganblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/21/diane-abbott-backed-victory-for-the-ira-see-the-document/

lol

[GS]

Returning again to the question as to why people like Boydy and Henry would support the party knowing that IRA supporters would be running the government.

[GS]

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/new-poll-analysis-watson-skinner-and-flint-facing-defeat-cooper-miliband-reeves-and-rayner-on-the-edge/#more-21610

It'll be interesting to see how many of these "big names" the Tories manage to take out. I'd be surprised if the social care policy, which unless it's explained in detail sounds like a bastard's trick, doesn't allow Labour to turn the conversation. Then again, the Tories can always turn it back to 'Brexit, mate' so let's see.

[GS]

866225626390319104

Seriously, why doesn't she just join one of the other parties?

[Boydy]

Returning again to the question as to why people like Boydy and Henry would support the party knowing that IRA supporters would be running the government.
I've voted for Sinn Fein in the past. I love the RA.

[Magic]

Hail hail. Corbyn in.

[GS]

Boydy voting for the IRA is a surprise, if nothing else. At least the mask of moderation has slipped.

[Henry]

Well, returning to that question, we're apparently okay with the supporters of Saudi Arabia and the Iraq War running the government. I have more of a problem with that.

[GS]

Of course you do, because criticism of the IRA can only be entertained when equivalence is established with the British state.

It's a repugnant stance, frankly.

[Kikó]

Add Myanmar and Turkey to the list of shame.

[Henry]

Not equivalence. The destruction of Iraq was a crime on a scale far surpassing anything ever even attempted by the IRA.

[Lewis]

True, and everyone associated with that should probably be killed; but, in terms of looking to run a country, a record of having undermined its territorial integrity is worse than simply being a dickhead.

[GS]

True, and everyone associated with that should probably be killed; but, in terms of looking to run a country, a record of having undermined its territorial integrity is worse than simply being a dickhead.

Precisely.

[GS]

Meanwhile in Scotland, the leaders' debate was on this evening. Nicola Sturgeon was BLASTED by a nurse for her NHS pay policy, and was evidently uncomfortable. The drones aren't comfortable when the Supreme Leader is publicly challenged, and since summary execution isn't possible until after independence, they set about trying to vilify the audience member.

They accused her of being a Tory councillor's wife, and ergo a plant. They basically made it up, and ended up having to backpedal furiously after the Beeb confirmed it was a lie.

True tinfoil hat territory, yet they're still going to get 40% of the vote minimum. Free battered Mars Bars for everyone.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

Meanwhile in Scotland, the leaders' debate was on this evening. Nicola Sturgeon was BLASTED by a nurse for her NHS pay policy, and was evidently uncomfortable. The drones aren't comfortable when the Supreme Leader is publicly challenged, and since summary execution isn't possible until after independence, they set about trying to vilify the audience member.

They accused her of being a Tory councillor's wife, and ergo a plant. They basically made it up, and ended up having to backpedal furiously after the Beeb confirmed it was a lie.

True tinfoil hat territory, yet they're still going to get 40% of the vote minimum. Free battered Mars Bars for everyone.
They're looking like proper bellends here. Mass character assassination attempt all over twitter.

Amazing how quickly people will share a meme believing everything at face value to suit their BBC conspiracy narrative.

[GS]

That's how the SNP operate. They're a contemptible band of utter cunts. I'm amazed more people in Scotland can't see through it.

[Lewis]

I think I only joined Twitter after the last election, but the sheer level of impotent rage floating around is just baffling. The referendum SEETHE was all concentrated on the bus, and there was lolling at PROJECT FEAR to be had, but everyone is just lashing out in all directions at everyone.

[GS]

It's an echo chamber. They did some analysis recently (fuck knows how) that suggested that the popular vote, based on Twitter, would see Labour with a ten point lead. It means these people think their message is getting through (alright, Henry, mate) whilst all the old people who aren't on Twitter have a turnout of about 180% and all vote Tory.

It's great in the aftermath of electoral defeat, because it's just a load of deeply upset leftists retweeting each other about the impending nuclear holocaust.

[Henry]

I don't use Twitter.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

It's an echo chamber. They did some analysis recently (fuck knows how) that suggested that the popular vote, based on Twitter, would see Labour with a ten point lead. It means these people think their message is getting through (alright, Henry, mate) whilst all the old people who aren't on Twitter have a turnout of about 180% and all vote Tory.

It's great in the aftermath of electoral defeat, because it's just a load of deeply upset leftists retweeting each other about the impending nuclear holocaust.

All these votes recently have made it even sweeter for meltdowns. The most seethe up here had to be the Independence one but the EU one did run it close.

[GS]

Never mind Twitter - my Facebook feed was fantastic after the referendum result.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

I may have posted this one at the time but it was my favourite from my news feed-


https://s15.postimg.org/z82hznkx7/fud.jpg

[phonics]

Theresa May out today to claim 'FAKE NEWS' on her social care policy that very clearly stated that they will take the value of your house down to 100k. It was possibly the most clear policy in the whole manifesto outside of the 'we'll definitely get immigration down <100,000' and 'we'll definitely clear the defiicit by 20xx' lies they've been telling for a decade.

edit: lol so the 'FAKE NEWS' is that there will be a cap on it which wasn't stated in the manifesto whatsoever. Someone clearly saw the 5 point Labour bump over the weekend.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The problem with manifestos (of all parties really) is that they're written by 23 year olds who have no idea what they're doing.

[Lewis]

This care stuff is pretty lol in that it has managed to make supposed left-wingers suddenly realise the value (economically and socially) of inheritances, and supposed right-wingers expecting the state to guarantee inheritances. It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise on the issue to me.

[Magic]

Anyone sticking money on Corbz? Remarkable turnaround, can feel something special away to happen.

Only sticking point is these cunts up here. People feel if they don't want independence they have to vote Tory, even if they absolutely disagree with their policies.

[phonics]

If the SNP didn't exist I'd say that GS would be crying into his sash.

edit: PS this is embarrassing across all sides.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAa0UI9W0AA_YMJ.jpg

[GS]

It was a terribly explained policy, but executing a sharp U-turn in this fashion makes it worse.

It's a good job that Corbyn is so uniformly dreadful.

[Waffdon]

Theresa May is fucking dreadful :D

[Jimmy Floyd]

Anyone sticking money on Corbz? Remarkable turnaround, can feel something special away to happen.

Only sticking point is these cunts up here. People feel if they don't want independence they have to vote Tory, even if they absolutely disagree with their policies.

Sadly for the Jezmobile it'll need something a lot more than a policy u-turn that no one understands to make him look like a credible PM.

[phonics]

"You're using quotes from the Labour Party to try and scare people in this country"

866580142369292288
866368749342924800
866312435040481281
866214222849601536

That's in the last 24 hours.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I can't wait for the inevitable 'Tories steady/up in polls despite social care fiasco' headlines in a couple of days.

[Kikó]

They're spineless and the opposite of stable. Any time they get a bit of a backlash their trousers brown and a reversal happens. It's a shame the Tories can get away with it because it's embarrassing.

[Henry]

The Tories quoting The Daily Mail, Telegraph & Daily Express in the ad there. What was that about echo chambers?

[Yevrah]

Of all the things that would bring about a mass seethe, a coalition of the England haters and the gay hater, led by Jeremy Corbyn would top it all.

Bring it on, for the lols like.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It would be pretty funny, tbh, or at least for the couple of months before the inevitable 'fresh election'.

[GS]

What seems to be overlooked is that Jez couldn't command the confidence of the house. Even if Labour managed to win 330 seats, the backbenchers who have refused to serve with him etc etc have basically said he's not up to it. Have the Tories draft a motion of no confidence, and see how many of them have any nerve.

[Mellberg]

What seems to overlooked is the second Maybot came out of her shell and actually talked policy she's had a nightmare and potentially knocked a few points off the lead. Strong and stable.

[GS]

That hasn't been overlooked, though. If anything, everyone following politics expects it. She's not a media performer ala Blair / Cameron, so it's hardly a surprise.

In other news, Jez called IRA murderers "brave" earlier. Also, George Osborne's schadenfreude is remarkable to see.

[Henry]

The idea that anyone who does something dastardly has to be automatically a coward is pretty bizarre, and underlines the one-dimensional groupthink that the establishment tries to enforce. I'm sure there were brave Nazis and brave suicide bombers as well.

[GS]

There's nothing heroic about planting a bomb and then detonating it when you're a safe distance away. The potential Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should not be suggesting that murderers who actively sought to kill British citizens (including MPs and the entire British government itself in Brighton) were "brave".

Your equivocation on this matter is most unseemly, yet entirely expected.

[phonics]

Shooting into a crowd. Now that's bravery.

[Henry]

There's nothing heroic about planting a bomb and then detonating it when you're a safe distance away. The potential Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should not be suggesting that murderers who actively sought to kill British citizens (including MPs and the entire British government itself in Brighton) were "brave".

Your equivocation on this matter is most unseemly, yet entirely expected.

Your stupidity is also entirely expected. Nobody has singled out the Brighton bombers or claimed that all IRA members were brave. You've chosen that misrepresentation because you can get on your high horse about it.

Corbyn said that there was "bravery both in the unionist community and the nationalist community". The horror.

[GS]

There's no need to get on the high horse when his IRA supporting mates are digging themselves into holes.

Why not just admit you're a sympathiser? At least that would have a degree of honesty to it.

[Henry]

Because refusing to play ball with your myopic, rabidly sectarian, triumphalist nonsense is not "support".

History is more complicated than the comic book that you portray it as.

[Lewis]

His precise choice of words is irrelevant. He wanted them to win. That makes him a traitor.

[GS]

His precise choice of words is irrelevant. He wanted them to win. That makes him a traitor.

There are myriad quotes and evidence from the time to prove it. No one can seriously argue against it, so they're forced into equivocation and evasion.

[Henry]

If the quotes were so damning, one wonders why you're forced into the logical contortions that you are about how the nationalist community is the same thing as the Brighton bomber.

[phonics]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAcJZaMXsAAXpUE.jpg

lol

[phonics]

She's going to announce what the cap is AFTER the election. What a joke. Clinton was crap but this one deserves to lose.

[GS]

It's a complete fuck-up, and an unnecessary one at that. That said, it's better they u-turn quickly and unashamedly than potter along with a shit policy.

[Jimmy Floyd]

No one deserves to lose to Corbyn.

[GS]

She isn't doing very well here, but knowing that Jez will be torn apart on Friday means it's completely irrelevant.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

And some people still accuse Andrew Neil of bias.

[GS]

Brillo is top class - he's brutal with everyone without resorting to the sort of Faisal Islam SHOUTING and SHOWBOATING.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He's so much better (and less of a twat) than Paxman ever was.

And as Dan Hodges (RIP) says on twitter, this is much better than a debate for putting the leaders under scrutiny.

[Byron]

Agreed, he's absolutely savaged the Strong and Stable May and Jez is soon in line for the same treatment.

[Lewis]

I'm watching Emmerdale.

[GS]

This format works much better than a debate - there's proper scrutiny, and nowhere for the politician to hide.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

This format works much better than a debate - there's proper scrutiny, and nowhere for the politician to hide.

Not having an audience to cheer for cheap points is welcome.

[GS]

Indeed.

Imagine the absolute carnage when Brillo gets stuck into Corbyn about the IRA on Friday. The one thing you can say about May here is that she's kept her cool under serious pressure - you suspect Jez will get angry when he's pushed.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Oh Christ, he's doing Paul Nuttall tomorrow. That's like Real Madrid against a group of fat, drunk pensioners in Torremolinos.

Tim Farron on Wednesday, Durgeon on Thursday and Jez on Friday.

[GS]

Some of these interviews are going to need to be broadcast after the watershed. :drool:

[Magic]

May is going to fucking bottle it. Hilarious losing to an UNELECTABLE LEADER.

[GS]

Right, now that the horror is over, let's consider. It was a terrible day for the Tories, but they've managed to stick all the shit into one day. They've u-turned quickly and unashamedly, and the story will move on as the other leaders are shredded. I imagine the whole clusterfuck will have had an impact in some of the more ambitious target seats, where the swing required was unlikely but possible, but beyond that the Tories are still hoovering the UKIP vote and that's what'll give them a big win.

Unless there's some other policy disaster, but you'd imagine this marks the low point with plenty of time for recovery before polling day.

[GS]

May is going to fucking bottle it. Hilarious losing to an UNELECTABLE LEADER.

She won't. Her majority will be based on continuing to run riot in former Lib Dem strongholds and hoovering up marginal seats with the hardcore UKIP vote who are flocking en masse to the Tories. Nothing you've seen here is going to stop that, because the LDs are terrible and former UKIP voters only care about Brexit definitely happening and cutting immigration. Jezza doesn't offer that.

[Yevrah]

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40005257

Savage.

She looked totally rattled.

[GS]

There's an argument to make for it, but the problem is nobody wants to hear it. Outside Core Group Marxist, people like the idea of passing their wealth onto their kids. Most people are, broadly speaking, happy with the idea of inherited wealth.

What the reaction suggests is that people want to pool responsibility for funding it, rather than take the risk/reward of doing it themselves. Which is fine, but they need to also realise that they're going to have to pay for it at some point. It can't just be passed onto 'someone else'.

[Jimmy Floyd]

lol even my parents are shitting themselves that Jeremy will now win. It's total bollocks. The majority will be crushing, campaigns have no effect on results. Just ask Ed Miliband (and Nick Clegg).

[GS]

That's useful this far out, because it makes people realise (for lack of a better word) that they can't give Labour a vote because it "won't matter".

It won't, but the narrative writes itself at the minute.

[Offshore Toon]

I reckon Corbyn will get the 'fuck it!' vote that made Brexit/Trump possible, though it won't be enough to win. Saying that, May is such a shallow, diddering mess that there has to be a couple more slip ups to come, so let's just hope they're big'uns.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Brexit wasn't caused by that and neither was Trump, which is where our noble friends in the luvvie classes get it so wrong.

[GS]

Brexit/Trump was about identity. A man who won't sing the national anthem, supports the killing of British citizens, appears to revile the Union flag, and wouldn't object if the country was run from Moscow is simply not going to win over the 'so-called' working class.

[Offshore Toon]

If you've got a duff hand and it's stick or twist, you're not going to stick. I was pro-Trump and pro-Brexit, but I'd much rather take the risk on Corbyn than face another five years of crap.

[phonics]

Brexit/Trump was about identity. A man who won't sing the national anthem, supports the killing of British citizens, appears to revile the Union flag, and wouldn't object if the country was run from Moscow is simply not going to win over the 'so-called' working class.


If the SNP didn't exist I'd say that GS would be crying into his sash.

Bloody hell it didn't even take the collapse of the SNP.

[GS]

I'm really not saying anything controversial. There's no way that Jez can win. People decided a long time ago that he wasn't up to it, and you simply can't turn that around with a spend-free manifesto and a couple of high-profile Tory fuck-ups.

Polls always close during the campaign, but there will still be a heavy Tory win on June 8th. Lyndon Crosby knows what he's doing, although I imagine he's fucking FUMING at the minute.

There was some 'throwback' earlier today to this period in the 1997 campaign, where the Labour lead supposedly wobbled and the Tories thought they had a "fighting chance" to turn it around. Three weeks later and the Lord Blair was sauntering up to Number 10 on the back of a 180 seat majority.

[GS]

If you've got a duff hand and it's stick or twist, you're not going to stick. I was pro-Trump and pro-Brexit, but I'd much rather take the risk on Corbyn than face another five years of crap.

If you were pro-Brexit, you're also not going to vote for a Labour party who are somewhat equivocal on Brexit and a leader who is non-commital on immigration. The Tories are taking about half of the 2015 UKIP vote alone, and you'd expect they'll hold onto that (perhaps even increase it) in the closing weeks. UKIP aren't standing in plenty of constituencies, and if the Tories take half of their vote across the board then plenty of Labour seats which were nominally safe are well in play.

[Shindig]

I don't see such a turnaround when you've had fresh local elections.

[GS]

Jez has had four tests at the ballot box since he became leader. Two sets of local elections (one poor, one dreadful), the EU referendum (where his official side lost and 'many' think it's his fault for clearly not giving a fuck), and the Scottish election where Labour contrived to finish behind the Tories.

There may be mitigating factors for all of these, but he's had 20 months in the job and every contact with actual votes has not gone well. It's not going to change now, particularly with crushing Tory leaders on economic management, Brexit negotiation and leadership (which, if May was up against someone half-competent, wouldn't be the case).

Opinion polls are fine, but actual votes matter - and he's been shit at that part.

[Shindig]

I guess this time around he's actually in campaign mode. He might as well not have existed for the referendum. We actually get to see what the frig Corbyn's about.

[GS]

He's always in campaign mode, that's his problem.

[GS]

With expected timing, the Tory dead cats begin to make their way firmly onto people's tables:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAdi-SvXYAA4uDO.jpg

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jezza is gaining in the polls, and is celebrating by blaming the terrorist attack on UK foreign policy.

:face:

[Lewis]

The wallies are out in force with the 'How can it be our fault when 11/9 was BEFORE Iraq?' argument, as if Osama bin Laden was some mug who struggled with dates, and 'How come most of the victims are Muslim?', as if all non-state violence done anywhere is all for the same immediate tactical and strategic reasons. Basically, anyone who struggles with these things should be disqualified from holding any position of influence.

Anyway, wasn't Ed Miliband leading the polls until he wasn't? Still, you would lol if a load of greedy pensioners won it for Jezza, if only to watch the mimsy class having to square it with wanting them all dead eleven months ago.

[GS]

That YouGov poll has probably caused Lynton Crosby's head to explode.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Looks a pretty soft surge to me (driven by non voters), however I think the one thing that really will damage May if it gains traction is the police cuts thing. Whatever other heinous stuff Corbyn will get up to, he won't cut the police and I think there will be a huge crime problem in the next 2-3 years (quite apart from terrorism) because of what she's done as Home Sec.

[GS]

There's no way it holds. It's driven by non voters and young people, who'll presumably get bored of it all closer to the election. Labour MPs have also been able to get away with saying you can vote for them without worrying about Jez becoming PM. Tightening polls changes that. The Tories will still win a very solid majority, given there's very little evidence their own vote is fluctuating massively from within the margin of error at 45% average.

That said, there's clearly an issue with May not being very good. The social care thing was a disaster from start to finish, and completely unnecessary. She's lucky the choice is her or Jez, really.

[Spammer]

I find a lot of how you lot talk to be pretty disingenuous. I can't quite put my finger on why though.

[Jimmy Floyd]

In what way disingenuous?

[Spammer]

I can't quite place it. None of it reads much like a conversation of any kind, but a disjointed series of obfuscated observations and references that seem largely self-serving in a back-patting, "we're proper knowledgeable, us lot" kind of way, rather than being any kind of honest attempt to actually discuss anything.

As I say, I can't quite pinpoint it and maybe I'll put it better later, or maybe someone else can express it better.

[Jimmy Floyd]

We've spent the last 7 years being right about elections on here (GS's pathetic Labour supporting phase aside), cut us some slack.

[Henry]

Statistically, one poll can be an outlier, so I wouldn't take too much notice unless there are others. Still, nice to see Tories sweat.

[GS]

We've spent the last 7 years being right about elections on here (GS's pathetic Labour supporting phase aside), cut us some slack.

That was more than seven years ago, I'm pleased to say. I was still a student when I was pro left. It was actually going to work and going out to various companies etc as part of the job that made me realise it was all bollocks.

Hammer - it's not disingenuous. We follow polling, know historical turnout for different segments etc. None of this is rocket science. The warning signs are all there for the Labour vote being very soft.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Incidentally I think the social care nonsense will lose her about 5-10 seats, and the Manchester attack will have no effect either way (unless Jeremy really ballses it up).

[Jimmy Floyd]

That was more than seven years ago, I'm pleased to say. I was still a student when I was pro left. It was actually going to work and going out to various companies etc as part of the job that made me realise it was all bollocks.

I'm a big one for people's jobs informing their political views (which is why arts people, who rely on government handouts, are all lefties as are charities, academics and public sector workers).

People scrapping for their own money out there in the big wide world tend to be more likely to vote Tory.

[GS]

The positive from the poll tightening is that it prevents Tory complacency. They'll go very, very heavy on his views on defence, security and terrorist apology now. Plus they can leverage the unpopularity of the SNP and Lib Dems dictating terms to him to swing votes in the marginals.

I think the two key stats here are 1) that the 65+ vote for the Tories is steady in the late sixties, suggesting little actual impact from the social care policy, and 2) they're now getting over 50% of the 2015 UKIP vote.

She'll win by 13, I think.

[GS]

I'm a big one for people's jobs informing their political views (which is why arts people, who rely on government handouts, are all lefties as are charities, academics and public sector workers).

People scrapping for their own money out there in the big wide world tend to be more likely to vote Tory.

It's not just that, but you go out to a big company and see how well their internal controls are working, that it's not run by robots determined to shaft the proletarians and, more importantly, the sheer number of people they employ.

You stop buying the rhetoric that you did when you were at university and didn't know any better. It's why people like Corbyn make me suspicious. Holding the same view you did at university suggests a lack of intellectual rigour.

[Lewis]

Looks a pretty soft surge to me (driven by non voters), however I think the one thing that really will damage May if it gains traction is the police cuts thing. Whatever other heinous stuff Corbyn will get up to, he won't cut the police and I think there will be a huge crime problem in the next 2-3 years (quite apart from terrorism) because of what she's done as Home Sec.

If you were that arsed about LAW AND ORDER that your vote hinged on it, why the fuck would you vote for Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott?

[Jimmy Floyd]

You wouldn't, hence May will get away with it, but she won't get away with it mid term onwards next time.

There is a crime surge coming.

[GS]

She'll go in three and a half years, I reckon.

[Lewis]

I don't know. She seems like the clinging on in the bunker type.

[GS]

They'll knife her. It's not as if you could let her lead you into the next election on the evidence of this complete clusterfuck.

[phonics]

I'm a big one for people's jobs informing their political views (which is why arts people, who rely on government handouts, are all lefties as are charities, academics and public sector workers).

People scrapping for their own money out there in the big wide world tend to be more likely to vote Tory.

And they say the left enjoys virtue signaling.

[Spammer]

It also may, just possibly, be the other way around, with them having values and, just perhaps, seeking out jobs that are in line with those values.

[Jimmy Floyd]

What is a value? I probably have identical 'values' to you.

[Lewis]

I believe in fairness.

[Spammer]

What is a value? I probably have identical 'values' to you.

They have ideas about how they want to live their lives and the kinds of things they want to spend their time doing in return for a wage.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Lots of people, if not most, don't have a massive degree of choice in the matter. Bit of both, as ever.

[Spammer]

Oh right, so it's both. Ok.

Do you even try to be consistent?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I said above that one thing happens. That doesn't mean that another thing doesn't also happen.

Cats exist, and so does rice.

[Magic]

I said above that one thing happens. That doesn't mean that another thing doesn't also happen.

Cats exist, and so does rice.

You could say they aren't mutually exclusive.

@John (http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/member.php?u=6) have I got that right? This is my moment to shine.

[Spammer]

It's a great example of what I was referring to earlier, really. How about just expressing your perspective?

I said that earlier, but my actual point isn't that, it's actually that with elements of this

Um ok.

[Lewis]

I believe in fairness.

I also think nurses should earn more than footballers.

[GS]

It's a case of recognising people have self interest. Parties of the left are looser with public money, ergo if you rely on it for your job / livelihood then you're more likely to support the party who are going to give you more of it.

If you're in the private sector, policies which make it easier for your business / employer to grow and spend their money on you through development, promotion, and pay increases are going to sound better. The money goes to you as an employee and not too the exchequer to be redirected to the aforesaid public money recipients. You'll also be less interested in arguments about welfare etc. when you're the one whose taxes are paying for it.

I would imagine this is quite normal.

[Disco]

I also think nurses should earn more than footballers.

An honest wage for an honest days work.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's a great example of what I was referring to earlier, really. How about just expressing your perspective?

I said that earlier, but my actual point isn't that, it's actually that with elements of this

Um ok.

I am. It's an election thread and I'm expressing my perspective about why many people vote a certain way. There will, even if I'm right, also be people who vote the way they do for other reasons.

[Spammer]

I am. It's an election thread and I'm expressing my perspective about why many people vote a certain way. There will, even if I'm right, also be people who vote the way they do for other reasons.

It's almost like having people understanding precisely what is meant isn't even the point.

I've assumed it was due to stupidity, and then due to poor expression. I'm starting to think that even if it's a throwaway, half-baked observation that adds very little to anything, people really think that's it's worth something and that people are interested. Self-absorption, then? Or a complete lack of any self-awareness whatsoever? Do people really think that their perspective is important, in and of itself, even if it adds nothing to the conversation? That's the only explanation I can think of for people expressing themselves in this way.

GS's post further up is a good example of it too. I mean, he's basically just parroted what you've said and added literally nothing to conversation that wasn't there already. Why would he post it? I don't know. I don't think anyone will know.

And then you look through the thread and wonder why it's become a circle-jerk between about four people rather than an interesting conversation about an important subject. I'm guessing most other members chat about this stuff elsewhere.

[GS]

I posted it because you appeared to be incapable of understanding his quite basic point.

[Lewis]

There are only five posters in the thread with more than fifty posts. One of them is Henners, one of them is some bot that reproduces shit Twitter snark and Guardian extracts, and the others - with over a hundred each - are GS, Floyd, and me. Is it all that surprising that we might tend towards addressing each other rather than the wider universe?