UK General Election 2017

[JP]

Not sure what else you expected. Do you think a different format would be better - one on one interviews or 2-2 traditional debate style?

Hmmm, dunno really. Think I am just tired of the whole thing and shouty politicians, people trying to sell themselves as the saviour of the UK shouting over each other like baying sea lions looking for a mate does nobody any favours. Just too many in one place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tories playing the English nationalist card again.
I suppose it worked the last time. Still I understand they want votes North of the Border.
The problems this time:
It's been tried already albeit with some success.
It led to a tory wipeout North of the Border.
With tories trumpeting Scottish tory votes it is a long stretch linking SNP votes to Labour.
Tory support in a hung election will come from Ulster.
We know running anything minority is no problem for Corbyn.

[jakswan]

Yes, in principle. But it depends upon the tax in question. Where the tax is aimed at those with the means and ability to rearrange their financial affairs to avoid, then certainly that's true. On the other hand if this is aimed at those who really have no meaningful way to avoid (the vast majority of the population) then no.

Hence the dilemma - it is easiest, politically, to argue for 'soaking the rich' - but the rich are, by definition rich enough to employ the best accountants etc to be able to avoid the increase and this may result in lower receipts.

If you actually want to be successful in raising more revenue much better to impose relatively small increases on low/middle income people, who will likely find it pretty well impossible to avoid the tax. Economically sensible, but politically this is suicide.

Agree so if Corbyn doesn't get the revenue he expects do you think he will crack on regardless or even be able to? I can't see the centrists will allow him to borrow much more on current spending, it would allow the Tories to dine out on that forever. 

I can see that the centrists would allow him to raise taxes to a wider extent then Corbyn becomes unpopular then throw the socialists out mid-term.

[Nearly Sane]

Found this quite interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39952365

[floo]

Found this quite interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39952365

I guessed 55% who voted in our area, it was actually 67%, so not too bad.

[Nearly Sane]

I guessed 55% who voted in our area, it was actually 67%, so not too bad.

Most of the questions I was close on, but not the age one, where I went considerably younger than actual figure.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree so if Corbyn doesn't get the revenue he expects do you think he will crack on regardless or even be able to?

I've no idea - why do you think I somehow have a hotline to Corbyn to know what he would do under those circumstances.

By why this total focus on Labour - what about the Tories - they have a manifesto which has been described as 'the only numbers are the page numbers'. So her commitments are completely uncosted - so what would she do if she fails to raise the revenue she needs or fails to make the cuts needed to meet her commitments.

[jakswan]

I've no idea - why do you think I somehow have a hotline to Corbyn to know what he would do under those circumstances.

You used to be a member of Labour and were a centrist so you might have an insight how that group will react.   

By why this total focus on Labour - what about the Tories - they have a manifesto which has been described as 'the only numbers are the page numbers'. So her commitments are completely uncosted - so what would she do if she fails to raise the revenue she needs or fails to make the cuts needed to meet her commitments.

I'm not thinking about voting for the Tories I'am thinking about voting Labour. My wife and I almost every time have voted for the winning party in the last 30 years, although I voted LibDem in 2010/5, we are floating voters.

Still not sure, I'am sure Corbyn isn't going to raise the money he thinks from Corp Tax, leaves a question mark.

[ProfessorDavey]

You used to be a member of Labour and were a centrist so you might have an insight how that group will react.

Nope - I think you are overestimating the level of insight that a rank and file member has on policy approaches. More specifically the Corbyn crowd were a kind of strange, tiny self contained splinter group with barely a handful of MPs prior to 2015. Their views weren't in any way mainstream in the party and therefore hardly likely that a centrist member would know of them to any great extent.

And I didn't vote for him in the leadership election (I voted for all the other candidates in various order) and left because of his leadership. So unlikely that I'd be on his Christmas card list, let alone have him ring me up to confide in me on plans of his economic figures don't add up.

I'm not thinking about voting for the Tories I'am thinking about voting Labour. My wife and I almost every time have voted for the winning party in the last 30 years, although I voted LibDem in 2010/5, we are floating voters.

Still not sure, I'am sure Corbyn isn't going to raise the money he thinks from Corp Tax, leaves a question mark.

So you seem to be implying that you won't vote Tory. If that is the case I think you need to decide whether your key objective is to vote in a positive manner for another party or vote tactically to ensure that the Tory candidate has the least chance of getting in.

I've no idea where you live and therefore of the political dynamics and whether it is a safe seat (in which case whichever way you vote is unlikely to change anything) or a marginal (in which case it might).

I'll add another couple of comments.

First even with the poll surge I think it is exceptionally unlikely that we will see a Corbyn lead government after the 8th June, so the issue is moot.

Secondly even were we too, Corbyn's hands will be completely tied, because virtually the whole of parliament will be to the right of him politically. His only option in power will be to compromise to the centre and right of his own party, as otherwise his plans will simply get voted down. The likelihood of him gaining a majority is vanishingly small but even if he did there will be no majority of like minded people.

[jakswan]

Nope - I think you are overestimating the level of insight that a rank and file member has on policy approaches. More specifically the Corbyn crowd were a kind of strange, tiny self contained splinter group with barely a handful of MPs prior to 2015. Their views weren't in any way mainstream in the party and therefore hardly likely that a centrist member would know of them to any great extent.

And I didn't vote for him in the leadership election (I voted for all the other candidates in various order) and left because of his leadership. So unlikely that I'd be on his Christmas card list, let alone have him ring me up to confide in me on plans of his economic figures don't add up.

Its not an insight into Corbyn would react but how the centrists would, you might have had an idea, never mind.

So you seem to be implying that you won't vote Tory. If that is the case I think you need to decide whether your key objective is to vote in a positive manner for another party or vote tactically to ensure that the Tory candidate has the least chance of getting in.

I've no idea where you live and therefore of the political dynamics and whether it is a safe seat (in which case whichever way you vote is unlikely to change anything) or a marginal (in which case it might).

I could vote Tory, I think May is a very poor politician and I'd vote for a centrist Labour led party without hesitation, its just how much power Corbyn is likely to wield. 

I'll add another couple of comments.

First even with the poll surge I think it is exceptionally unlikely that we will see a Corbyn lead government after the 8th June, so the issue is moot.

Secondly even were we too, Corbyn's hands will be completely tied, because virtually the whole of parliament will be to the right of him politically. His only option in power will be to compromise to the centre and right of his own party, as otherwise his plans will simply get voted down. The likelihood of him gaining a majority is vanishingly small but even if he did there will be no majority of like minded people.

Fair and well constructed argument!

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826

If guilty he deserves to become a guest of HM! TM is sticking up for him, which won't go down well with many of the electorate!

[ProfessorDavey]

I could vote Tory, I think May is a very poor politician and I'd vote for a centrist Labour led party without hesitation, its just how much power Corbyn is likely to wield.

If voting Tory is an option, why are you not asking the same probing questions about her plans as you are about Corbyn's plans. That would seem sensible to me, as that would allow you to judge both options.

For what it is worth even were Corbyn in power he would have sufficient support even in his own party for some of the most extreme tax and spend commitments, so they would necessarily get toned down as otherwise they'd be voted down in parliament.

That isn't the same for May - she has uncosted plans but she would have sufficient support in parliament to push them through. And don't forget that some of those commitments were simply 'magic-ed' up out of thin air days before the manifesto launch without even consulting her cabinet colleagues.

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826

If guilty he deserves to become a guest of HM! TM is sticking up for him, which won't go down well with many of the electorate!

Not good news for May and her judgement yet again is awful - she should have completely distanced herself from him, which would have been pretty easy as she wasn't leader back in 2015.

Some have suggested that it is just one of 650 candidates, but I think that misses the point. Don't forget that he was standing against Nigel Farage - so expect some pretty robust UKIP response, not doubt including Farage. There may well be a few wavering previous UKIP voters leaning toward the Tories who will see this as cheating that prevented their beloved Farage getting elected. This may deliver a small, but potentially critical, swing back to UKIP from the Tories.

[floo]

Not good news for May and her judgement yet again is awful - she should have completely distanced herself from him, which would have been pretty easy as she wasn't leader back in 2015.

Some have suggested that it is just one of 650 candidates, but I think that misses the point. Don't forget that he was standing against Nigel Farage - so expect some pretty robust UKIP response, not doubt including Farage. There may well be a few wavering previous UKIP voters leaning toward the Tories who will see this as cheating that prevented their beloved Farage getting elected. This may deliver a small, but potentially critical, swing back to UKIP from the Tories.

That would be TERRIBLE!

[ProfessorDavey]

That would be TERRIBLE!

I really am beginning to seriously worry about May's judgement. Over this she has simply offered another opportunity for Corbyn to get the better of her.

This is an ongoing investigation and therefore under standard rules people in the public eye should not make comments that might prejudice a fair trial. So that would obviously include making statements suggesting that someone is guilty or innocent. Which is of course what May has just done, rather than to have simply said 'I cannot comment due to the ongoing investigation'. May really should know better as a former Home secretary.

So this has now allowed Corbyn to say the following:

"Nobody should be commenting on the details of an ongoing case, the police must be allowed to act independently, to investigate on the basis of any evidence they've got and the Crown Prosecution Service must be allowed to make its decision on whether to proceed on a case. I think it is a very bad road when democratically elected politicians start offering a running commentary on independent judicial processes. We have to have total separation of political and judicial powers in this country."

So he has, in effect, been able to credibly attack May for her ill-judged comments, while of course obliquely reminding the public that a Tory MP and candidate has been charged with election expenses offences. He has also managed to get in his point about separation of political and judicial powers which is his main defence against the attack ads on his record of voting against anti terror legislation.

I still completely disagree with his politics, but you have to admit that he is playing a blinder in this campaign, constantly getting the better of May.

[floo]

I really am beginning to seriously worry about May's judgement. Over this she has simply offered another opportunity for Corbyn to get the better of her.

This is an ongoing investigation and therefore under standard rules people in the public eye should not make comments that might prejudice a fair trial. So that would obviously include making statements suggesting that someone is guilty or innocent. Which is of course what May has just done, rather than to have simply said 'I cannot comment due to the ongoing investigation'. May really should know better as a former Home secretary.

So this has now allowed Corbyn to say the following:

"Nobody should be commenting on the details of an ongoing case, the police must be allowed to act independently, to investigate on the basis of any evidence they've got and the Crown Prosecution Service must be allowed to make its decision on whether to proceed on a case. I think it is a very bad road when democratically elected politicians start offering a running commentary on independent judicial processes. We have to have total separation of political and judicial powers in this country."

So he has, in effect, been able to credibly attack May for her ill-judged comments, while of course obliquely reminding the public that a Tory MP and candidate has been charged with election expenses offences. He has also managed to get in his point about separation of political and judicial powers which is his main defence against the attack ads on his record of voting against anti terror legislation.

I still completely disagree with his politics, but you have to admit that he is playing a blinder in this campaign, constantly getting the better of May.

I agree.

[wigginhall]

There is something worrying about May, she looks quite frail, and her judgment seems all over the place.   I can't make head nor tail of her in fact, it just seems odd that Corbyn was slated as the nutty one, with cack-handed judgment.   Maybe the pressure has got to her, or she over-estimated her own position.    I think the line about Corbyn being alone and naked in negotiations, obviously an echo of Nye Bevan, was very weird, as she followed it up by saying 'not an image to think about'.  So why say it? 

[jakswan]

There is something worrying about May, she looks quite frail, and her judgment seems all over the place.   I can't make head nor tail of her in fact, it just seems odd that Corbyn was slated as the nutty one, with cack-handed judgment.   Maybe the pressure has got to her, or she over-estimated her own position.    I think the line about Corbyn being alone and naked in negotiations, obviously an echo of Nye Bevan, was very weird, as she followed it up by saying 'not an image to think about'.  So why say it? 

If voting Tory is an option, why are you not asking the same probing questions about her plans as you are about Corbyn's plans. That would seem sensible to me, as that would allow you to judge both options.

For what it is worth even were Corbyn in power he would have sufficient support even in his own party for some of the most extreme tax and spend commitments, so they would necessarily get toned down as otherwise they'd be voted down in parliament.

That isn't the same for May - she has uncosted plans but she would have sufficient support in parliament to push them through. And don't forget that some of those commitments were simply 'magic-ed' up out of thin air days before the manifesto launch without even consulting her cabinet colleagues.

I think Corp tax is almost certain to not raise revenue as much as Corbyn thinks so its a guess what Corbyn will do or be able to do next.

I don't see the same size gap in Tory manifesto, agree its not costed and has a few unknowns but not to the same scale.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see the same size gap in Tory manifesto, agree its not costed and has a few unknowns but not to the same scale.

Given that it is uncosted how on earth can you know whether you can see a gap of similar size, or bigger, or smaller.

So just to start - her U turn on a cap on social care costs. How much will this cost, where is the money going to come from - it certainly isn't planned because she announced a cap yet failed to announce any revenue raising measures to pay for the cost of that gap.

And don't forget that over the last 7 years the Tories have been appalling at matching their economic pledges, on tax, spending and (critically) borrowing. Note that the deficit was supposed to have been reduced to 0% in 2015 (in the 2010 election manifesto), then in 2018 (in the 2015 election manifesto) and that commitment has been kicked further and further into the long grass. And if there has been a need to borrow far more than planned that means that there was a black hole in the gap between tax receipts and spending that was not planned.

To give some kind of context, according to their 2010 (and in effect their 2015) commitment the deficit should now be zero, indeed on the 2010 commitments we should be running a surplus. The reality is that our deficit is £70billion - in other words the Tories estimates of what they would raise and what they would spend are some £70billion a year out.

[jakswan]

Given that it is uncosted how on earth can you know whether you can see a gap of similar size, or bigger, or smaller.

So just to start - her U turn on a cap on social care costs. How much will this cost, where is the money going to come from - it certainly isn't planned because she announced a cap yet failed to announce any revenue raising measures to pay for the cost of that gap.

The social care policy is revenue raising AFAIK.

To be honest I find the Tory manifesto pretty bland, I have no doubt they will make more cuts, continue to reduce Corp Tax and where they can cut taxes.

I like the Labour policies generally, but this increase in Corp Tax could be damaging and produce no extra income.

And don't forget that over the last 7 years the Tories have been appalling at matching their economic pledges, on tax, spending and (critically) borrowing. Note that the deficit was supposed to have been reduced to 0% in 2015 (in the 2010 election manifesto), then in 2018 (in the 2015 election manifesto) and that commitment has been kicked further and further into the long grass. And if there has been a need to borrow far more than planned that means that there was a black hole in the gap between tax receipts and spending that was not planned.

To give some kind of context, according to their 2010 (and in effect their 2015) commitment the deficit should now be zero, indeed on the 2010 commitments we should be running a surplus. The reality is that our deficit is £70billion - in other words the Tories estimates of what they would raise and what they would spend are some £70billion a year out.

So you wanted more severe austerity? 

[ProfessorDavey]

The social care policy is revenue raising AFAIK.

But the cap costs money compared to the original uncapped proposal in the manifesto.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you wanted more severe austerity?

Very simplistic interpretation.

The key problem with the Osborne economics of the early years post 2010 was that the austerity (actually more precisely the perception thereof) effectively stiffled growth so the economy flat-lined and that's what did for the public finances and therefore the plan to reduce the deficit. Other countries, most notably the USA invested to generate growth, ended up with a better growing economy and therefore much improved tax receipts allowing them to bring down their deficit much faster.

The other big problem was that austerity itself (i.e. cuts) are exceptionally difficult to achieve. It is one thing to say 'we are going to cut the budget for this department by x%' quite another to actually deliver it. And in many cases you actually have to invest to save, which wasn't factored in. So I know from personal experience with my brother that headline plans to 'cut quangos' effectively saved nothing as the costs to make staff redundant wiped out any savings in the first couple of years, and then the government ended up recognising that the functions of said quangos was actually still needed so they in effect re-hired the people they'd just laid off at significant cost who had set up in a private manner. So there was, frankly, no saving at all despite the bold headline.

And look at the current NHS position - easy to demand NHS trusts to meet unachievable squeezed budgets, but what are you actually going to do when it proves, well, unachievable. Suddenly decide no longer to keep A&E open for the last 2 months of the year because the trust has spent all its money? Of course not - so the target for cuts isn't delivered.

So actually the policy of austerity is precisely the reason why the deficit is £70billion greater that the Tories had planned.

[jakswan]

Very simplistic interpretation.

The key problem with the Osborne economics of the early years post 2010 was that the austerity (actually more precisely the perception thereof) effectively stiffled growth so the economy flat-lined and that's what did for the public finances and therefore the plan to reduce the deficit. Other countries, most notably the USA invested to generate growth, ended up with a better growing economy and therefore much improved tax receipts allowing them to bring down their deficit much faster.

The other big problem was that austerity itself (i.e. cuts) are exceptionally difficult to achieve. It is one thing to say 'we are going to cut the budget for this department by x%' quite another to actually deliver it. And in many cases you actually have to invest to save, which wasn't factored in. So I know from personal experience with my brother that headline plans to 'cut quangos' effectively saved nothing as the costs to make staff redundant wiped out any savings in the first couple of years, and then the government ended up recognising that the functions of said quangos was actually still needed so they in effect re-hired the people they'd just laid off at significant cost who had set up in a private manner. So there was, frankly, no saving at all despite the bold headline.

And look at the current NHS position - easy to demand NHS trusts to meet unachievable squeezed budgets, but what are you actually going to do when it proves, well, unachievable. Suddenly decide no longer to keep A&E open for the last 2 months of the year because the trust has spent all its money? Of course not - so the target for cuts isn't delivered.

So actually the policy of austerity is precisely the reason why the deficit is £70billion greater that the Tories had planned.

Not too sure about that, actually current fiscal policy of the Tories isn't far off what Miliband proposed in 2015 manifesto.

Anyway we have seen what Crobyn now proposes done in France haven't we:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10403285/GDP-Britains-recovery-compared-to-other-developed-nations.html

[ProfessorDavey]

Not too sure about that, actually current fiscal policy of the Tories isn't far off what Miliband proposed in 2015 manifesto.

Anyway we have seen what Crobyn now proposes done in France haven't we:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10403285/GDP-Britains-recovery-compared-to-other-developed-nations.html

Why are you linking to an article from 2013 in which they are making 'predictions' about 2014 and 2018, the first of which didn't come true and the second looks astonishingly unlikely given that GDP growth in the last quarter was just 0.2%.

Lovely dishonest data presentation too - note the different y-axis scales for the graphs for quarterly growth for the UK and Germany. To the untrained eye you might think the UK is better, but of course the max scale for the Germany graph is 2% growth, while for the UK graph it is just 1% growth.

[jakswan]

Why are you linking to an article from 2013 in which they are making 'predictions' about 2014 and 2018, the first of which didn't come true and the second looks astonishingly unlikely given that GDP growth in the last quarter was just 0.2%.

Lovely dishonest data presentation too - note the different y-axis scales for the graphs for quarterly growth for the UK and Germany. To the untrained eye you might think the UK is better, but of course the max scale for the Germany graph is 2% growth, while for the UK graph it is just 1% growth.

Apologies I just did a google search without checking the date. My main point from that article was France who elected a Corbyn and how they had performed.