Labour ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Which party is “promising” to :-

Negotiate Brexit in a friendly way (despite Junckers)

Let "the people” decide on the outcome whether to Leave or Remain

Raise taxes so that we can collectively invest in the NHS, our schools and our infrastructure

Keep Trident and our influence at the international negotiating table

Sell arms to all our friendly allies, including Saudi Arabia

Maintain the “Triple-Lock” on State pensions (I know, I’m being selfish on this one!)

Make Scotland feel an integral part of the UK (we really do love you !)

They will get my vote.........

That sounds like a party with no hope of actually getting elected...

Isn't that a bit of a shame? All we'll get is the nasty party, emboldened to be nastier than ever. 

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true. However, in several of the previous general elections its been said that many voters have complained that there wasn't much difference between what the main parties said they would do, because the parties had been trying to occupy 'the centre'. Some justify not voting on that basis. Although we have yet to see the Conservatives manifesto, the PM has clearly been trying to appeal to the 'working class' voter.  So credit to Corbyn for creating a genuine choice this time round.  People might whinge that Labour's policies are unaffordable and/or are undeliverable but they can't, this time, allege that there isn't much difference between the main parties. If people can't be bothered to vote this time, they are going to need to find a different excuse.  

Sadly most people won't have seen unbiased reporting about the two manifestos.  It's not that the media entirely tell people how to vote, but the media is very good at reinforcing people's views.  I'd like to think people will vote on policies, but I suspect the election has already been decided on a May vs Corbyn basis.  

Has the Tory party manifesto been launched then?  I must have missed it!

dayjay posted:

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

HH's earlier post about many voters making decisions on factors like the personality of the leaders is depressingly true. However, in several of the previous general elections its been said that many voters have complained that there wasn't much difference between what the main parties said they would do, because the parties had been trying to occupy 'the centre'. Some justify not voting on that basis. Although we have yet to see the Conservatives manifesto, the PM has clearly been trying to appeal to the 'working class' voter.  So credit to Corbyn for creating a genuine choice this time round.  People might whinge that Labour's policies are unaffordable and/or are undeliverable but they can't, this time, allege that there isn't much difference between the main parties. If people can't be bothered to vote this time, they are going to need to find a different excuse.  

Sadly most people won't have seen unbiased reporting about the two manifestos.  It's not that the media entirely tell people how to vote, but the media is very good at reinforcing people's views.  I'd like to think people will vote on policies, but I suspect the election has already been decided on a May vs Corbyn basis.  

Has the Tory party manifesto been launched then?  I must have missed it!

No, "later this week" maybe "tomorrow".

I should have said "most people won't see" rather than in the past tense.

I was at a rather lively wedding all weekend so could easily have missed it.  To be honest we could have gone to war on Monday and I would have missed that too.

dayjay posted:

I was at a rather lively wedding all weekend so could easily have missed it.  To be honest we could have gone to war on Monday and I would have missed that too.

Labour yesterday, Lib Dem today, Tory ... well who knows but TM said "later this week" then appeared to stumble and said tomorrow without meaning to... actually I think that's the TM manifesto ... I don't the Conservatives are bothering this time!

Strong and Stable?

Hungryhalibut posted:

Isn't that a bit of a shame? All we'll get is the nasty party, emboldened to be nastier than ever. 

Oh I love it when the Left think they are not going to be elected

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Isn't that a bit of a shame? All we'll get is the nasty party, emboldened to be nastier than ever. 

Oh I love it when the Left think they are not going to be elected

I'm wondering how many voters are going to be confused when there are no candidates who are members of the Theresa May party...

Eloise posted:

dayjay posted:

I was at a rather lively wedding all weekend so could easily have missed it.  To be honest we could have gone to war on Monday and I would have missed that too.

Labour yesterday, Lib Dem today, Tory ... well who knows but TM said "later this week" then appeared to stumble and said tomorrow without meaning to... actually I think that's the TM manifesto ... I don't the Conservatives are bothering this time!

Strong and Stable?

Having looked at the other two they probably don't need to bother, it's like a weird game of who dares loses so far and I'd say they are neck and neck.

Most of the Tory manifesto is quite favourable, and certainly a killer blow to Labour.

Although the scrapping of free school dinners is a negative. 

Scrapping of the triple lock on pensions makes sense, it's just not sustainable.

Winter fuel allowance will be means tested.

Contributing to care at home, again makes sense. 

Although Corbyn is suggesting it's a manifesto against pensioners, I think he's grasping at straws.

wenger2015 posted:

Most of the Tory manifesto is quite favourable, and certainly a killer blow to Labour.

Although the scrapping of free school dinners is a negative. 

Scrapping of the triple lock on pensions makes sense, it's just not sustainable.

Winter fuel allowance will be means tested.

Contributing to care at home, again makes sense. 

Although Corbyn is suggesting it's a manifesto against pensioners, I think he's grasping at straws.

 

A killer blow! Not sure how you conclude that - because it's designed to scoop up the UKIP vote? I gather there's nothing about Brexit policy. There's the obsession with immigration. 

Free school meals removed to fund the grammar school obsession.

Failure to produce a coherent social care policy - here's the lottery - I'm going to be in my 70s soon - if I get cancer when I'm 75 I can expect to rely on the NHS for care; alternatively if I get dementia I will have to pay for it - or build up debt until my children pay a death tax. 

More failure in terms of getting rid of our national debt, which apparently was why we had to elect them and suffer austerity. Austerity continues...

Meritocracy is a problematic concept.

Clive

The death tax mechanics are unclear. Does the £100,000 apply to each person? Assume house worth £400,000, married couple equal shares, first person accumulates £50,000 care costs before death, leaving a net interest in the house of £150,000.Assume survivor inherits, then care costs for survivor can cost up to £250,000 to leave £100,000. But if first deceased leaves £150,000 share to children the state presumably can only claim £100,000 on second death.

lawyers and tax planners will love all this!

and presumably the increasing inheritance tax threshold will continue saving a couple up to £140,000?

finally, what constitutes a wealthier pensioner to determine loss of fuel benefit? Single income or joint income or high net worth.

There is so much missing detail in the manifesto that any vote decision either wayis a leap of faith.

wanderer posted:

lawyers and tax planners will love all this!

And so many of them will be finding the loopholes to pass their property onto others before they become ill!

It's worth bearing in mind that this is simply an extension of the current rules, whereby there can be a deferred charge against property to pay for residential care, but the same does not apply to domiciliary care, so it's something of an anomaly. 

When my stepmother died, and it was her house, it was transferred to my dad, me, and my stepbrother and stepsister, 25% each, precisely a void carehome fees. As it happened we didn't need to use a home. This does open the new owners up to capital gains tax, as it's not their prime residence, and it requires absolute trust as any one of the owners can force a sale. 

It's a real dilemma for people, especially with house prices being so high and an inheritance increasingly becoming the only way to buy a house of one's own for many people. The £100,000 won't get you very far in Hampshire. 

Given how much the Conservatives went on about the sums and funding "holes" in the Labour manifesto; how do people feel about the lack of funding / saving information in the Conservative manifesto, and the revelation that the government have no idea what the cost to the economy of reducing immigration to below 100,000 would be?

The Labour manifesto is a sort of costed, and rather inspirational, vision to change Britain for the better. The Conservative manifesto is an uncosted document setting out more of the same, gloom and doom of austerity and declining services into the foreseeable future. That's my take on it  

I agree with the Conservatives proposal to end the triple lock though. Pensioner income has risen disproportionately compared to that of many workers and the 2.5% is unaffordable. That said, I bet there are a lot of workers who'd like to be guaranteed CPI or a rise in line with average wages, especially now that the former is outstripping the latter. To their credit, the Tories are at least making some difficult decisions. But to me the negatives far outweigh any positives.

And how will they get immigration down? By magic?

"To their credit, the Tories are at least making some difficult decisions. But to me the negatives far outweigh any positives."   That's what stands out to me, and I wonder if that is their strategy; we are taking the difficult decisions whilst the opposition is promising the earth and putting us at risk.  The Labour promises are almost too good to be true and I do wonder if the old trust issue on finance will impact on their chances as a result.

There you have it, all clear now?! 

totemphile posted:

There you have it, all clear now?! 

 

I think he means the other Jeremy C. That guy is speaking much clearer things which are understandable by the people.

Hungryhalibut posted:

 And how will they get immigration down? By magic?

I don't think they will, for the same reason that they haven't previously. They have no intention of doing so.

My reasoning: they need GDP figures to look as good as possible, so that they can bang on about a strong economy. Since GDP is measured as a brute figure rather than per capita, a net population increase made up of economically active immigrants pushes the figure up even though per capita GDP is lagging. Thus immigration props up the picture they can paint about the economy as a whole even though actual people are getting poorer. Hence voters think the Tories are good at the economy, despite every target having been missed, and wage growth since the crash being negative, the worst of all developed countries apart from Greece.

I suspect that's part of it, at least.

Dave***t posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

 And how will they get immigration down? By magic?

I don't think they will, for the same reason that they haven't previously. They have no intention of doing so.

My reasoning: they need GDP figures to look as good as possible, so that they can bang on about a strong economy. Since GDP is measured as a brute figure rather than per capita, a net population increase made up of economically active immigrants pushes the figure up even though per capita GDP is lagging. Thus immigration props up the picture they can paint about the economy as a whole even though actual people are getting poorer. Hence voters think the Tories are good at the economy, despite every target having been missed, and wage growth since the crash being negative, the worst of all developed countries apart from Greece.

I suspect that's part of it, at least.

I agree,

This Tory government under May is determined to give as little away as possible leading up to the election. They believe (probably correctly) that the focus in the election will be on Brexit and this ridiculous concept that a "Strong" leader with an overwhelming majority is needed for the Brexit negotiations. This to me is patently ridiculous. I firmly believe that a non combative approach, which is something that appears to be totally alien to Theresa May, will bear a far greater reward for the UK as it exits the EU.

Because the focus, in the minds of many of the non traditionally Tory aligned voters will be on Brexit, the Tories believe that they can get away with a number of repeated sound-bites and a number of proposed policies that they will argue are designed to help the ordinary man or woman, but when looked at in detail are nothing of the kind. Take for example:

- the proposal to allow employees to take up to a year's leave in order to care for dependents. Who at first glance would argue that this is not a compassionate proposal, until you realises that A) no person with anything other than a very healthy disposable income could possibly afford to do anything of the sort, B) it will cost the Tories nothing. Anyone who does so will be abdicating the need for the NHS to provide care for their neady dependent, and C) it could seriously damage a significant number of small businesses, were it not for the fact that no one will be able to afford to take the unpaid leave anyway. 

Just one example of a policy that has obviously been designed to look 'compassionate', but in reality is nothing but.

Theresa May's claim of being an inclusive government in my view is at best simply not true, and at worst a cynical deception.  

Hmack posted:

Just one example of a policy that has obviously been designed to look 'compassionate', but in reality is nothing but.

Theresa May's claim of being an inclusive government in my view is at best simply not true, and at worst a cynical deception.  

In complete agreement with what you said ... the whole Manifesto is one which looks good and gives enough that the Daily Mail and Sun can promote it with truths; while ignoring the negative sides.

Yesterday's Mail headline was a case in point...

"YOU WON'T HAVE TO SELL HOME TO PAY FOR YOUR CARE"

was true, but lacking in important facts.  The more honest headline of...

"YOUR CHILDREN WON'T INHERIT YOUR HOME IF YOU NEED CARE"

wouldn't play anywhere near as good with the Mail's and therefore TM's target audience.

Hungryhalibut posted:

The Labour manifesto is a sort of costed, and rather inspirational, vision to change Britain for the better. The Conservative manifesto is an uncosted document setting out more of the same, gloom and doom of austerity and declining services into the foreseeable future. That's my take on it  

I agree with the Conservatives proposal to end the triple lock though. Pensioner income has risen disproportionately compared to that of many workers and the 2.5% is unaffordable. That said, I bet there are a lot of workers who'd like to be guaranteed CPI or a rise in line with average wages, especially now that the former is outstripping the latter. To their credit, the Tories are at least making some difficult decisions. But to me the negatives far outweigh any positives.

And how will they get immigration down? By magic?

 

 

HH,

I agree with much of what you say.

However, I would take issue with your support of the Tory proposal to end the triple lock. The triple lock was introduced primarily because the value of the state pension had been eroded significantly over a period of time, and remember that although many (or most) 'low paid' people do not have the luxury of a lock of this sort, they do by and large have an income and disposable that is significantly greater than that of most pensioners who rely exclusively on the state pension. I suspect that you and I (and many others who contribute to this forum) have private pensions which will supplement our income in old age, but many pensioners rely exclusively on the state pension which by any measure is not a huge amount of money, particularly at a time when inflation and the cost of living are almost inevitable going to rise.

I would also argue that the Tories continue to badly under-fund the NHS, while issuing banal platitudes about what a great job the service is doing. The NHS needs a large injection of money, at least something approaching that afforded by many other countries, and we should simply face up to this fact. If this means raising taxes for those who can afford it (and I include myself), and it obviously will, then so be it. If an increase in taxes were to be proposed that would involve targeting the funding of critical parts of the NHS (such as the provision of an adequate number of adequately paid nursing staff for example), then I am sure that the proposal would be welcomed by most reasonable people.      

Hmack posted:

 

However, I would take issue with your support of the Tory proposal to end the triple lock. The triple lock was introduced primarily because the value of the state pension had been eroded significantly over a period of time, and remember that although many (or most) 'low paid' people do not have the luxury of a lock of this sort, they do by and large have an income and disposable that is significantly greater than that of most pensioners who rely exclusively on the state pension.

The issue with the triple lock isn't that the triple lock is bad per se; but that wages generally are so low so pensions are increased disproportionately.  There shouldn't be the plan to remove the triple lock; but ideas to increase wages generally.

The whole political movement is in economic denial.