General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%
  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
Is it not Labour policy that they will accept any deal, irrespective of the bill? Emily Thornberry also admitted on LBC earlier this week that they have no plan for how future immigration will be managed. And point blank, i wouldn't trust Corbyn to defend British interests in talks with the EU. He'd roll over for a tickle.

For years, Clagg and the Lib Dems said they wanted a clear In/Out referendum; such was part of their opposition to a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. They got what they asked for but didn't like the result.
It's actually not as simple as that.

In fairness to Clegg, this pledge was specifically tied to the Lisbon Treaty and, while the Lib Dems' 2010 manifesto repeated the promise of a referendum, it suggested that one should be only held "the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU." Since the UK is currently not negotiating a new treaty, Clegg will argue that the preconditions for a vote have not been met. But in the heat of the Commons, this detail is likely to be lost. Expect Tory MPs to bombard Clegg with questions accusing him of showing "complete disdain" for the British people and of breaking yet another election pledge.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today

Since then, though, there’s been a fair amount of head-scratching at Lib Dem HQ trying to find out more about that leaflet.

They think they now know the answer: it dates to 2008 — two years before the general election — when the Lisbon Treaty was progressing through Parliament.***

(also, that leaflet was produced by a local, not National, Lib Dem branch)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surp...ib-dem-inout-eu-referendum-leaflet-32686.html

That this House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom should

(a) remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;

(b) leave the European Union; or

(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/referendum-membership-lib

Although I'm not saying they didn't flip-flop on this issue for years.... but the Lib Dems never wanted this.

Is it not Labour policy that they will accept any deal, irrespective of the bill? Emily Thornberry also admitted on LBC earlier this week that they have no plan for how future immigration will be managed. And point blank, i wouldn't trust Corbyn to defend British interests in talks with the EU. He'd roll over for a tickle.
Tories have admitted that they can't ensure immigration will come down (although the 100k net migration figure remains).

The thing is, I don't trust the Tories to get anything out of the negotiations at all. They'll be choosing "no deal" over "bad deal" because they just cant get a good deal. Labour have a lot more love stored from EU leaders.
 
On the other hand I've said all along I just can't see the gap being much more than 10 points. Just historically speaking, even a gap of 10+ points is rare (just 4 times since the war). All this 20+ points stuff seemed fanciful.
From the last four polls or so, the average Tory lead is about 15 points. It'll be very interesting to see how much Labour can gain when the Tory manifesto is taken into account in the coming week.
 
Got the IFS on hand for that:

According to that their will be required tax increases though?

I suppose the tories have given so little detail the IFS can only talk ideology rather than their actual jobs.
 
We = the ~2m who use the railways on a regular basis. Everyone else pays less. It's just moving the cost on to those who use it.

Nope still wrong.

We pay £4.3 Billion a year in subsidies to the rail franchises directly from the government, or in real terms, three times what British Rail received.

The extortionate fares are on top of that.

So your premise that state rail is more expensive, is nonsense, provably so.
 
Good overview on the care stuff from Ed M's old policy bloke


Really interesting read.

Policy sounds transformational - really intrigued to see the response. Labour have to attack this with everything they have.

But at the same time I think it's clearly fair that older people will have to pay more, including of their assets to fund care. The charts in that article are fascinating, especially the divergence in benefit expenditure per head. You have to agree with the last two paragraphs of that article, even if you disagree with how the policy will be implemented.
The ideal care system would incorporate both the social insurance of Dilnot with the additional resources and progressive protection that today’s proposals amount to. On this, as with so much in life, it turns out you can’t have it all. The same applies to the politics of this shift, where Theresa May could not both be the person protecting housing wealth and the person offering an answer to one of the big challenges of our time. She has chosen the latter. For today most of the press has supported her, including the Daily Mail and the Express, but only a fool would assume that will continue once the losers move from the spreadsheets to those living in comfy homes on Britain’s streets.

After all the big picture today is that Theresa May is proposing to significantly change our social care system to increase the volume of care people receive and is asking people with housing wealth to pay more for it. That marks the end of an era both for the Conservative Party and possibly for the wider politics of intergenerational fairness.

Like you said I assume this must be arrogance - actually putting through unpopular policies that Osborne shied away from because they think they'll still win the election. They will still win the election, but response to the manifesto and the next three weeks now looks a lot more interesting. I find May such a black box to understand.
 
It's actually not as simple as that.


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today


http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surp...ib-dem-inout-eu-referendum-leaflet-32686.html


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/referendum-membership-lib

Although I'm not saying they didn't flip-flop on this issue for years.... but the Lib Dems never wanted this.


Tories have admitted that they can't ensure immigration will come down (although the 100k net migration figure remains).

The thing is, I don't trust the Tories to get anything out of the negotiations at all. They'll be choosing "no deal" over "bad deal" because they just cant get a good deal. Labour have a lot more love stored from EU leaders.

If only Lab/Lib had backed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty... Instead, further resentment built up over time (as well as the crash) and they picked the wrong battle.

Of course immigration isn't coming down to the 10,000s (nor should it), that's why there's no deadline. But electorally, it plays a lot better than Labour's nebulous messaging.

I suspect that Labour would be accepting of things contrary to the current stance: continued ECJ jurisdiction, FoM, larger ongoing contributions e.t.c.
 
This proposed investment in NHS infrastructure, is it coming out of the £1.5bn of additional funding each year? I don't see any other figures in the manifesto for health.

We don't need another PFI mess on our hands.
 
I suspect that Labour would be accepting of things contrary to the current stance: continued ECJ jurisdiction, FoM, larger ongoing contributions e.t.c.
Indeed, but I suspect that, when it comes down to it, the Tories will accept a lot of that as well.

Freedom of movement is going to go away, but something similar could take it's place.
 
IFS's take on the move from triple to double lock.

IFS Observation - Moving from a Triple to a Double Lock does little to long-run state pension affordability

Authors: Carl Emmerson and Andrew Hood

Today’s Conservative manifesto announced that from 2020 onwards the state pension would be increased over time in line with average earnings or inflation whichever is highest – the so-called ‘Double Lock’. In this observation we show that this is very similar to sticking with the Triple Lock, and does little to resolve the pressures an ageing population will put on the public finances over the years to come.

The Figure shows projected state pension spending as a share of national income up to 2066–67 (based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility Fiscal Sustainability Report, and not incorporating the recommendations of the recent Cridland Review) under three uprating rules: average earnings, the double lock and the triple lock. As we have noted before, half of the increase in state pension spending forecast over the next 50 years (0.9% of national income, or nearly £20 billion in today’s terms) is explained by the triple lock, rather than other factors.

As the figure makes clear, moving to a double lock does very little to help. State pension spending in fifty years time is only 0.2% of national income lower (less than £5 billion in today’s terms). In other words, moving to a double lock undoes only around a quarter of the damage done by the triple lock to the long-run sustainability of the public finances. So with the double lock in place spending on the state pension would still be projected to increase by 1.6% of national income (a little over £30 billion in today’s terms) over the next fifty years, with over 40% of this increase being explained by the double lock (relative to increasing in line with average earnings) rather than other factors.

The fundamental reason for this is that it is pretty rare for both average earnings and inflation to be below 2.5%. Hence getting rid of the 2.5% element of the triple lock does little to change the projected long-run generosity of the state pension.

Figure. Projections of state pension spending

C:\Users\JPHILL~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png


The frustrating thing is that it is possible to insure pensioners against the state pension ever falling in real terms without the ‘ratchet’ effect that means both a triple-locked and double-locked state pension would rise faster than earnings or prices over the long run. The answer is the ‘smoothed earnings link’ described here which makes sure the state pension never falls in real terms, and rises in line with earnings growth over the long run.
 
Really interesting read.

Policy sounds transformational - really intrigued to see the response. Labour have to attack this with everything they have.

But at the same time I think it's clearly fair that older people will have to pay more, including of their assets to fund care. The charts in that article are fascinating, especially the divergence in benefit expenditure per head. You have to agree with the last two paragraphs of that article, even if you disagree with how the policy will be implemented.


Like you said I assume this must be arrogance - actually putting through unpopular policies that Osborne shied away from because they think they'll still win the election. They will still win the election, but response to the manifesto and the next three weeks now looks a lot more interesting. I find May such a black box to understand.
Labour gets nowhere near enough credit on what it did on child poverty.

The response to the care policy will be interesting, Mail went positive today but if "Death Tax" builds up a head of steam then you never know.

One benefit of this election is that we won't hear "Labour lost because they didn't offer a clear enough alternative". Two very different options on the table.
 
With the benefit of more time, i somewhat confused by the content of the speech . Naturally, they wanted to go big on the Brexit and tough decisions mantra, but why not also mention the health and education funding? According to the news, they're pretty well matching Labour's pledge on the schools budget (although the timeframe might be different).

I do think that earlier predictions have been borne out today; a Tory PM describing companies as rip-off merchants for instance.
 
This is the right way to hold referendums, and if anyone had ever thought there was the a real possibility Brexit would happen, that's what we would have had.

First referendum; choose what Brexit we are going to have (Single Market In & Immigration In OR Single Market Out * Immigration Out, etc)

Second referendum; this Brexit vs the Status Quo

The problem is that the Brexit we are going to get is not one that anyone has voted for. If the Tories keep immigration, they are going to piss off 30% of the electorate. If the Tories get "no deal" and tank the economy, they are going to piss off 70% of the electorate.

Right now they are hard set on a free-trade agreement with no single market access and paying the smallest divorce bill possible. Possibly - this is what the electorate would have asked for in a NZ style double referendum anyway, but we don't know that. No one voted for it.

A referendum on whether to stay in the Single Market when, prior to any negotiation, no one would have any idea of what the cost of that would be.

So the Single Market option would not be 'Single Market In', it would actually be 'Single Market In No Matter What The Cost'.
Mind you some would still be dumb enough to vote for that, I suppose.
 
Are there reason why we shouldn't means-test with other benefits in the future? Or at least be more reflective of circumstances?

During lunch we were discussing the means-testing of DLA, and whether its implementation is too simplistic at present. For example, my status a a London resident gives me vastly more means to travel (for free) than those in other parts of the country; should my mobility component be adjusted accordingly?
 
Last edited:
One good thing about it is it's pissed off Guido

 
Are there a reason why we shouldn't means-test with other benefits in the future? Or at least be more reflective of circumstances?

During lunch we were discussing the means-testing of DLA, and whether its implementation is too simplistic at present. For example, my status a a London resident gives me vastly more means to travel (for free) than those in other parts of the country; should my mobility component be adjusted accordingly?
Wasn't the cost of means-testing some things seen as prohibitive, as it erodes all of the potential savings?
 
So i am a working class parent, working full time and i can tell you the only way i can describe thst Tory manifesto is deeply fecking terrifying.
 
Yeah that does seem to be a case of being seen to do something.

I'm perplexed by their approach on students, i was one of 2 english students doing my masters the rest were all high paying international students. Universities need that income and industries need that talent pool.
I'd almost say it's their worst policy, pushing away international students. It makes zero sense, and the immigrant hating public doesn't even want it.
 
Last edited:
Nope still wrong.

We pay £4.3 Billion a year in subsidies to the rail franchises directly from the government, or in real terms, three times what British Rail received.

The extortionate fares are on top of that.

So your premise that state rail is more expensive, is nonsense, provably so.

The franchise payments are more than the subsidies given out. £3b versus £2.4b last year. The government actually made a profit on it.

What costs the money is Network Rail running the infrastructure. Still, the £3.8b that costs is a far cry from the £17b in subsidies Germany gives out each year.

In fact, UK railways now cover 99% of their own costs before subsidies. It was in the 70% range in the last BR days.
 
Posted about this yesterday - basically guarantees the Tories' win, and explains why the Lib Dem recovery looks impossible now. Really good article.

feck the students, this will keep kids from their mothers, it's heartless and cruel
Definitely agree. The horror is that that policy will actually poll well in some places... :(
 
What's the logic of Corbyn not going on the tv debate tonight... a chance to talk directly to the voters and explain his policies?

I can see mays logic (risk vs reward) but I honestly can't figure out why Corbyn wouldn't go on?