Labour ?

Don Atkinson posted:

My gut feeling says this will be a landslide victory for the Conservatives.

TM will achieve her aim of securing a significant majority of seats in the HoC. She will take this as a mandate for running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result.

If significantly more than half those who vote, vote Conservative, then I accept that running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result will be justified, at least in some strange sort of way. And who knows, looking on the bright side, she just might be successful in securing a good outcome. let's hope so any way.

However, if she doesn't secure significantly more than half the popular vote, but still secures a significant majority of seats in the HoC, what then..........? eg :-

In the "limit", suppose there are four candidates for each seat, and the Conservatives win each and every seat with 25% of the votes cast plus 10................eg 25,010 v 24,996 v 24,997 v 24,997............? Is she still justified in running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result ?

Not sure I understand your preoccupation with "significantly more than half the popular vote...".

This is a GE, not a referendum. A parliamentary majority will give the Conservatives a mandate to pursue the content of their manifesto. May has made her stance on Brexit negotiations reasonably clear. If the British voter doesn't want that, let him/her vote for one of the alternatives. If you don't like the current version of democracy, perhaps you should consider founding a revolutionary alternative?

Don Atkinson posted:

However, if [TM] doesn't secure significantly more than half the popular vote, but still secures a significant majority of seats in the HoC, what then..........? eg :-

In the "limit", suppose there are four candidates for each seat, and the Conservatives win each and every seat with 25% of the votes cast plus 10................eg 25,010 v 24,996 v 24,997 v 24,997............? Is she still justified in running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result ?

Yes, because ours is a winner-takes-all system.

Chris

The Labour humiliation continues.... 

wenger2015 posted:

The Labour humiliation continues.... 

Corbyn is delusional he's talking up the hope that local elections are not the same as a GE and labour will still win it.  (oh well at least he's not a quitter)  But now he's making a prat of himself as the latest from ( I assume John McDonnell ) is that labour will protect 95% of the tax paying population & those earning below £80,000 will not get a tax rise under labour;  the math does not tally,  like significant billions not tally.       When do we get to read the published election manifestos?

Mike-B posted:

wenger2015 posted:

The Labour humiliation continues.... 

Corbyn is delusional he's talking up the hope that local elections are not the same as a GE and labour will still win it.  (oh well at least he's not a quitter)  But now he's making a prat of himself as the latest from ( I assume John McDonnell ) is that labour will protect 95% of the tax paying population & those earning below £80,000 will not get a tax rise under labour;  the math does not tally,  like significant billions not tally.       When do we get to read the published election manifestos?

Maybe D Abbot is in charge of the arithmetic?  Oh dear!!! 

Ms Abbott seems very conspicuous in her absence these last few days.  Understandable,  but sooner or later she has to break cover.   

Kristian Guru Murthy brilliant question to (Tory) Nadhim Zahawi:

'Theresa May say's she is taking nothing for granted - You must seriously consider Jeremy Corbyn a genuine threat. What is it about him that you think voters find so appealing?' 

G

GraemeH posted:

Kristian Guru Murthy brilliant question to (Tory) Nadhim Zahawi:

'Theresa May say's she is taking nothing for granted - You must seriously consider Jeremy Corbyn a genuine threat. What is it about him that you think voters find so appealing?' 

G

Brilliant !!!

Mike-B posted:

Ms Abbott seems very conspicuous in her absence these last few days.  Understandable,  but sooner or later she has to break cover.   

Apparently she has been seen getting some numeracy lessons from Nick Leeson..

I thought John McDonnell and Jeremy Hunt both gave good and well prepared performances on the Andrew Marr show this morning. (Ms Abbott take note).  However McDonnell  talks about equality and fairness - however I can't square that with his tax suggestions.

Currently more than 25% of the UK income tax is paid by just 1% of its population - this already seems unstable and has been pointed out as dangerous and liable to instability if there is another shock to the economy as advised by the Resolution Foundation - yet McDonnell wants to make it more unstable. He should come clean if he wants to raise more income for services then he should apply the tax across all those that pay tax - even perhaps graduated depending on income - but trying to sweep it away into ever tinier parts of the population to fund is a recipe for disaster, deceitful, cynical and unsustainable. I would have hoped Labour would have learnt about instability... and also he is wanting to borrow more money - where already our interest payments make gigantic cuts   into our budgets for social care, the NHS and everything else - this will mean we will have even less money to look after our population with..

As it is those who contribute least take the most from the services - to my mind there is nothing wrong with that - its what a caring country is all about - but I feel we should be more honest and sustainable on how we are to pay for it - and that includes from all taxpayers - not perpetually overly relying from a tiny 1% of the population.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

Have to say that although it's against my instincts the Lib Sem approach is more honest - everyone pays 1p more for the NHS.  

As ever Labour's approach is manifestly regressive.  A single income family on say £90k will pay more but a dual income family on £75k will pay no more.   Not a brain cell amongst them.  

Hungryhalibut posted:

Higher Taxes for Deb!

What have i done to deserve this?   

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Have to say that although it's against my instincts the Lib Sem approach is more honest - everyone pays 1p more for the NHS.  

As ever Labour's approach is manifestly regressive.  A single income family on say £90k will pay more but a dual income family on £75k will pay no more.   Not a brain cell amongst them.  

Why is this regressive according to your figures? My understanding is that progressive taxation is generally regarded as obtaining more from higher incomes to redistribute to benefit society generally. There's no doubt that the trend over recent years has been regressive as the gap between rich and poor has grown, leading to a less equal society. Some of that has been as a result of taxation policies since 2010. 

Clive

True Clive that in simple terms an individual on say £90k will pay more than the person on £75k.  But under the Lib Dem plan a family on say a joint income of £100k (say £70k and £30k) will make a an additional contribution whereas under Labour's plan they would not.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

True Clive that in simple terms an individual on say £90k will pay more than the person on £75k.  But under the Lib Dem plan a family on say a joint income of £100k (say £70k and £30k) will make a an additional contribution whereas under Labour's plan they would not.  

OK - I thought that's what you were getting at. It depends whether they stick with the current system of an individually based taxation system or revert to some form of household assessment. I suspect the latter will be too difficult but it is very unlikely to be more than theoretical anyhow!

Clive

Cdb posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

True Clive that in simple terms an individual on say £90k will pay more than the person on £75k.  But under the Lib Dem plan a family on say a joint income of £100k (say £70k and £30k) will make a an additional contribution whereas under Labour's plan they would not.  

OK - I thought that's what you were getting at. It depends whether they stick with the current system of an individually based taxation system or revert to some form of household assessment. I suspect the latter will be too difficult but it is very unlikely to be more than theoretical anyhow!

Clive

That has been done in the case of child benefit for couples where one is a higher rate taxpayer, though, as you say, it is a bit difficult administratively.

All the negative comments about Labour and their current leadership ... does anyone have any suggestions how they can improve it in the next month?  To anyone who thinks they can't improve it, but who's usual instinct would be to vote Labour, do they really feel that Tory under TM is going to bring something closer to their political ideal than Labour under JC?

Eloise posted:

All the negative comments about Labour and their current leadership ... does anyone have any suggestions how they can improve it in the next month?  To anyone who thinks they can't improve it, but who's usual instinct would be to vote Labour, do they really feel that Tory under TM is going to bring something closer to their political ideal than Labour under JC?

Well it's a phoney election simply because of the Brexit.  As someone who would never vote Labour - I just don't have socialist principles - I also have misgivings with TM because I'm an ardent remainer.   The Lib-Dems should be making hay.........

Unfortunately it's all to late for Labour, they needed a change of Leadership sometime ago.

I cannot understand why Corbyn does not put the true interests of the party before himself?

Even Cameron realised if you lose your credibility, it's best to step down in the interests of one's own party and more importantly the country.

I would suggest the future of the Labour Party is dependent on Corbyn resigning after the GE, and someone in the league of David Miliband returning and taking the reigns,  if he could be persuaded. 

And someone telling Tony Blair to get on a slow boat to China instead of attempting to return to front line politics...obviously due to the fact he has lost all credibility with the general public and will only damage the party further.... 

Theirs more chance of the Pope becoming a Jehovahs Witness then any of the above....

Now if Labour had somebody like Burnham leading them I suspect things could be very very different... he has done at a regional level what May is doing at a national level - reaching out to people across classes and traditional view points.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I thought John McDonnell and Jeremy Hunt both gave good and well prepared performances on the Andrew Marr show this morning. (Ms Abbott take note).  However McDonnell  talks about equality and fairness - however I can't square that with his tax suggestions.

Currently more than 25% of the UK income tax is paid by just 1% of its population - this already seems unstable and has been pointed out as dangerous and liable to instability if there is another shock to the economy as advised by the Resolution Foundation - yet McDonnell wants to make it more unstable. He should come clean if he wants to raise more income for services then he should apply the tax across all those that pay tax - even perhaps graduated depending on income - but trying to sweep it away into ever tinier parts of the population to fund is a recipe for disaster, deceitful, cynical and unsustainable. I would have hoped Labour would have learnt about instability... and also he is wanting to borrow more money - where already our interest payments make gigantic cuts   into our budgets for social care, the NHS and everything else - this will mean we will have even less money to look after our population with..

As it is those who contribute least take the most from the services - to my mind there is nothing wrong with that - its what a caring country is all about - but I feel we should be more honest and sustainable on how we are to pay for it - and that includes from all taxpayers - not perpetually overly relying from a tiny 1% of the population.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

 

I presume you’re quoting from the Resolution Foundation press release titled “Unaffordable, unfair and unwise tax cuts have prevented the government from balancing the books”

The paragraph concerning instability doesn’t really correspond to you’re quote, it’s not clear what they mean, but it appears to be saying there could be economic shocks that will effect the richest 1% more than others. I can’t see a problem with that.

 “The Foundation adds that while top earners should pay more in a progressive tax system, an over-reliance on such revenues can leave the economy more exposed to economic shocks that disproportionately affect a small part of the population”.

 http://www.resolutionfoundatio...balancing-the-books/

With regards to the richest 1% paying more than 25% of the UK income tax.

The link you provided indicates the source of this figure is HMRC Table 2.4. When you look at this table, one fact jumps out of the screen at you, the percentage during labours time in government was approx 22 to 23, the percentage from 2010 to 2016 was approx 26. So the mantra that the Tories offer a strong and stable government is obviously a myth.

https://www.gov.uk/government/...523872/Table_2.4.pdf

 You can’t put forward an end of the world scenario based on one fact, thing simply aren’t that simple.

Yes that is exactly what I am referring to, and if there is an economic shock to a small proportion of your population that you are overly reliant on for taxation, then the risk of serious revenue instability if there is an economic shock, as opposed to have a more equal and resilient means of taxation... to my way of thinking that is bad for social security funding and our NHS security.

Anyway I found the BBC article I referenced interesting and thought provoking, and I noticed other observers today in the media were making similar observatins as mine.. so it seems I am perhaps not alone thinking this... however not quite sure what the Tories have got to do with this.. this was a Labour idea I thought.

The challenge for Labour is that Jeremy Corbyn is highly regarded in Camden but not Nuneaton.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

The challenge for Labour is that Jeremy Corbyn is highly regarded in Camden but not Nuneaton.  

Out of interest what has driven the link between Camden and Nuneaton with Corbyn?