Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
People who cautioned against electing Corbyn leader weren't motivated to do so because they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, they were motivated by the belief he wouldnt attract, or more likely would repel, moderate voters
I've just addressed that point in the post you quote. People were concerned that Corbyn was going for demographics that weren't going to be reliable. I'd also say that Corbyn in the end didn't really attract many moderate voters either - it was the anti Tory vote plus non voters that he really harnessed very well, more so than winning over moderates if we want to go down that road.
Serious question - why can't the government write off the QE? It's only theoretical money
Because writing it off can't be undone and serves no purpose. The government doesn't spend a penny on the QE money, but for as long as it is still QE money it could theoretically be reversed if inflation picked up dramatically.
This JRM thing is hilarious - the Conservatives need to win over the under 40s and gain seats in London. They need someone who appeals to those demographics not someone who makes the Conservative party base and the over 65s feel good.
Also re the last thread - if the Guardian criticising JRM means that the left 'fear him' then the right must fear Jeremy Corbyn, with all the criticism the right wing press have given him in recent months.
People dismissing Corbyn as Labour leader two years ago made the argument you make in your first paragraph as a warning against him
JRM would be an interesting choice, whereas many of the others come under the heading of "same old gang". His appeal would be a bit similar to Douglas-Home (who nearly won in difficult circumstances), though Alec was more of a "natural gentleman" while JRM clearly lays on the fogey thing deliberately. People seem keen on distinctive characters of any kind - Corbyn benefits from that, Boris did well for a long time, and even Galloway had his fans for a while.
I think these distinctive characters are more marmite than anything - you either love or hate them.
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
People who cautioned against electing Corbyn leader weren't motivated to do so because they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, they were motivated by the belief he wouldnt attract, or more likely would repel, moderate voters
I've just addressed that point in the post you quote. People were concerned that Corbyn was going for demographics that weren't going to be reliable. I'd also say that Corbyn in the end didn't really attract many moderate voters either - it was the anti Tory vote plus non voters that he really harnessed very well, more so than winning over moderates if we want to go down that road.
Misremember then, you're beyond help
That's not a very helpful reply. Sorry you believe I'm beyond help because I don't agree with you.
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
People who cautioned against electing Corbyn leader weren't motivated to do so because they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, they were motivated by the belief he wouldnt attract, or more likely would repel, moderate voters
I've just addressed that point in the post you quote. People were concerned that Corbyn was going for demographics that weren't going to be reliable. I'd also say that Corbyn in the end didn't really attract many moderate voters either - it was the anti Tory vote plus non voters that he really harnessed very well, more so than winning over moderates if we want to go down that road.
Misremember then, you're beyond help
That's not a very helpful reply. Sorry you believe I'm beyond help because I don't agree with you.
Some mentioned Corbyn only appealing to hard left types, but it was acknowledged at the very start he had significant support from young people - it's just that many thought that they wouldn't turn out. Likewise, the non voter strategy was also spoken about well before the GE by Corbyn supporters and many also thought that they couldn't be relied upon because they were a traditionally unreliable voting base. I saw the non voter strategy touched upon by Corbynistas on videos discussing Corbyn's leadership some time ago on YouTube as well. He was trying to by pass the traditional media via social media from the get go, but a lot of people at the time thought that he was only speaking to those who already supported him, or who wouldn't turn out anyway.
There wasn't a clear consensus even at that time that a centrist would solve Labour's problems either. Many were hugely critical of the field of Labour candidates two years ago, and found the centrists utterly uninspiring. A few initially praised Liz Kendall but criticism of her as well as Yvette Cooper popped up as the campaign gradually went on. One of the biggest criticisms aimed at the centrists from all quarters was that none of them appeared to stand for anything. I wanted Yvette to win because she was the best of a very bad bunch though.
People who cautioned against electing Corbyn leader weren't motivated to do so because they thought his supporters wouldn't turn out, they were motivated by the belief he wouldnt attract, or more likely would repel, moderate voters
I've just addressed that point in the post you quote. People were concerned that Corbyn was going for demographics that weren't going to be reliable - Corbynistas were never interested in moderate swing voters, they saw them as Tories and thought they could by pass them and still win a majority. I'd also say that Corbyn in the end didn't really attract many moderate voters either - it was the anti Tory vote plus non voters that he really harnessed very well, more so than winning over moderates if we want to go down that road.
That was one concern, but there was plenty of concern that he would repel existing voters.
Indeed, there's plenty of evidence that up till about 18th May, he was repelling existing voters.
If you need something done very quickly, use your insurance.
My mother was operated on privately, within 10 days of being diagnosed with cancer.
And yes, the food is much better.
My mother was in a private hospital for a week for a hip operation followed 6 weeks later by 3 weeks in an NHS hospital following a stroke.
The food in the NHS hospital was remarkably good. She got a menu she chose from and she need never have had the same meal twice, though she did several times because she liked the food.
There was also much less of a sense of sort-yourself-out about the NHS than I had expected. With the hip operation she was discharged and she was then on her own; nobody contacted her to arrange physio appointments, she had to do all that herself (or rather I did).
When she was discharged from the NHS the physios turned up the next day and have done so ever since.
The private hospital building was nicer. The NHS one was a former workhouse site to which modern units have been added. The one she was in, and the most recent addition, was built in 1983, and inside it looked thoroughly beaten up.
I know it was 1983 because it was going up when I worked there as a cleaner in school holidays back then. It was a slightly eerie feeling to cut through those old workhouse buildings on the way to her ward. The food I used to help dish up in them was 70s school food - slop, really. The food's changed and the workhouse buildings are wards no longer. It does show up the stuff about the NHS being this huge gift to the nation though. As far as I can tell the 1947 NHS consisted mainly of existing workhouses and hospitals that were nationalised and rebranded.
Some basic commonsense says that if you ask each individual person for less money then you're obviously going to get less money in total - just as commonsense also says that if you spend more money, you're going to have a bigger shortfall in your finances (with all other things being equal).
Basic common sense and tax setting rarely go together like green eggs and ham.
Both the arguments you made for why tax cuts mean better tax revenues (about stimulating the economy, and people "voting with their feet") can be made to argue why higher spending means lower deficits.
Sure, in theory, both arguments are possible. In theory. But, as the original poster says, "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".
Perhaps, but if you look at the recent data in this country, then lower income tax rates improve tax takes.
Lower Corporation Tax rates have led to lower CT tax take:
2008 rate = 28%; CT take = 3.28% of GDP = £47.0bn 2016 rate = 20%; CT take = 2.36% of GDP = £44.4bn
Incidentally, I think a real and undiscussed problem with the current corp tax rates is that they have removed the differentiation between SMEs and big corps.
Ok, with income taxes the only rate recent change has been the reduction of the 50% additional rate to 45% ("we're all in it together"). Here's the effect, which clearly shows lowering tax rates did not improve tax take:
Year Top rate Income tax take %GDP 2010 50% 9.79% 2011 50% 9.85% 2012 50% 9.61% 2013 45% 9.24% 2014 45% 9.19% 2015 45% 9.20% 2016 45% 9.33%
Incidentally, re your point about SMEs, the Labour manifesto pledged "We will protect small businesses by reintroducing the lower small pro ts rate of corporation tax."
"only rate recent change has been the reduction of the 50% additional rate to 45% "
No. By far the larger effect has been the change in lower tax threshold, more than swamping that. In effect, it's been to reduce the rate for the very lowest from 20% to 0%, and has affected well over an order of magnitude more people.
Which, much as your Betfair account likes it, is not really the best use of scarce public funds when the government's books have a £50bn hole in them! Likewise, my parents spent theirs on a winter holiday last year.
Better to tie it to Pensions Credit, so that it goes to those who struggle to get through the winter - rather than as a nice Christmas bonus to the middle classes.
No doubt true but which Conservative or Labour (or indeed LD) politician is going to have the courage to stand up and say that ? I agree the WFA is a waste of money and needs to be better targeted at those pensioners who actually need it but in political terms what would be the effect of saying that ?
The election really killed off the idea that a party could be honest wbout hard choices.
Doubtless that will be the conclusion drawn by politicians but is it true? Couldn't you as easily make the opposite case -- that the Conservatives were undone by not being honest with voters?
The Conservative manifesto (unlike Labour's) was uncosted. If the numbers had been there, then it might have been clearer that (as many stated on here at the time) the dementia tax would actually leave those affected better off. Or that means-testing WFA would not leave pensioners to freeze.
It's the cynical omission of numbers that cost the majority. CCHQ was hoist by its own petard.
On the subject of hospital food, I was firmly informed that the Royal London's food in May 2017 (after a change in supplier contract) was far better than it had been in August 2016. I had privately thought that view was down to the improved appetite of the patient, but the nurses told me that the response of patients in general backed that up.
Serious question - why can't the government write off the QE? It's only theoretical money
Because writing it off can't be undone and serves no purpose. The government doesn't spend a penny on the QE money, but for as long as it is still QE money it could theoretically be reversed if inflation picked up dramatically.
Worse than that, the income from the bonds sold via QE appears as a positive on the government's balance sheet.
But yes, it will need to be unwound once the govt starts earning more than it's spending - which, with interest rates on the floor and inflation still low is going to take a long time.
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
The Laffer curve definitely exists, how it is shaped is - however - a mystery. Sadly, we cannot run multiple regressions on identical economies to see the impact of changing marginal tax rates. However, what we can say is that at both 0% tax, and 100% tax, you would end up with exactly zero tax collected.
HMRC should be able to model the gradient of the curve for income tax in the UK extremely well at around £100K, where Darling's bonkers 60% rate (plus employee's and employer's NI) kicks in. I suspect the bunching of income at just under £100K, especially amongst directors and senior employees in small companies, will be quite dramatic.
I don't yet, but I'm certainly interested in earning £95k in a way I'm not for £105k.
On the other hand earnings between 125-150k come back into a better bracket. I try to keep my earnings at the upper end of that range, via extra duties payments or my modest Private Practice.
Yes. I'd prefer to hang at 95k for 3-4 years and then jump up to that (Director) level of £125k+, if my career ever takes off that well.
You'd still be personally better off with a £110k salary than a £95k one, even with Darling's personal allowance shenanigans! (shenanigans that GO never resolved in 6 years of budget opportunity btw)
These are not even first world problems however; they are "top 5% of first world" problems, which I personally feel extremely lucky to have faced.
I think people who earn £100-150k through salaried professional employment generally work very hard for it, take a lot of responsibility and work long hours.
We have to get past the idea that that's undeserved.
I think the bigger issue is whopping great levels of asset wealth and company/board salaries in the millions.
They also face significant risks in private industry that are unknown in the public sector. Nobody goes to jail or lose their livelihood for mismanaging a filthy, dangerous hospital, for example, or failing to notice child abuse. Get censured by the FCA for poor record keeping and you'll never work in the financial sector again.
On the subject of hospital food, I was firmly informed that the Royal London's food in May 2017 (after a change in supplier contract) was far better than it had been in August 2016. I had privately thought that view was down to the improved appetite of the patient, but the nurses told me that the response of patients in general backed that up.
I thought asking someone if they liked hospital food was a threat!
It is equally valid to say that lots of other issues were each, on their own, enough to deny the Conservative Party a majority.
For example, when I was delivering leaflets in Croydon Central (not even canvassing), one person spontaneously said that he wouldn't vote Conservative because "he [i.e. Gavin Barwell] will legalise fox-hunting". Never mind the fact that Gavin is against fox-hunting, and has said so, or that it would be a free vote, or that it would never get a majority in the House of Commons anyway. The mere fact that the issue of fox-hunting was even mentioned in the manifesto at all was a huge misjudgment; the fact that it would be a free vote didn't register or wasn't recognised.
That was just on my own regular delivery patch of c.300 households. There would have been numerous other such voters all over the constituency, and countless across the country.
Only an extra 97 votes in four constituencies would have been enough for a de-facto overall majority. Those extra votes were lost because of fox-hunting, the NHS, Brexit, Remainers, same-sex marriage, or any other issue you care to mention - individually, and not even in combination.
Pretty much the only matter decided for good by the 2017 election is that we won't be returning to letting people get fun out of setting packs of dogs onto foxes.
If hunts pivoted to hunting rats rather than foxes - really big, well-fed, vomit-smelling greyish-brown rats - would you be OK with them doing that? I am never sure whether anti-hunt people think foxes are cute, or whether they just hate people who own horses.
@isam Nope. In my reply to you, I agreed that some were concerned that he'd only appeal to hard left types. But there was also the other factors that I mentioned too, and certainly no overall consensus that a centrist type would be best. Indeed many wanted a Blue Labour kind of strategy that Andy Burnham had more recently embraced. Many saw Jon Crudas ideas as the way to go even back then.
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
@isam Nope. In my reply to you, I agreed that some were concerned that he'd only appeal to hard left types. But there was also the other factors that I mentioned too, and certainly no overall consensus that a centrist type would be best. Indeed many wanted a Blue Labour kind of strategy that Andy Burnham had more recently embraced. Many saw Jon Crudas ideas as the way to go even back then.
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
People made the same warnings you make about JRM about Corbyn, it's just a fact. We can carry on all day with this but I doubt we will get anywhere
This is a basic neoliberal article of faith... but I just can't see any evidence for that. That's all.
The Laffer curve definitely exists, how it is shaped is - however - a mystery. Sadly, we cannot run multiple regressions on identical economies to see the impact of changing marginal tax rates. However, what we can say is that at both 0% tax, and 100% tax, you would end up with exactly zero tax collected.
HMRC should be able to model the gradient of the curve for income tax in the UK extremely well at around £100K, where Darling's bonkers 60% rate (plus employee's and employer's NI) kicks in. I suspect the bunching of income at just under £100K, especially amongst directors and senior employees in small companies, will be quite dramatic.
I don't yet, but I'm certainly interested in earning £95k in a way I'm not for £105k.
On the other hand earnings between 125-150k come back into a better bracket. I try to keep my earnings at the upper end of that range, via extra duties payments or my modest Private Practice.
It was once thought despicable for NHS Consultants to run private practices. Tempi cambi. I trust you don't use NHS facilities , " juniors " , nurses and secretaries in your extramural money grubbing.
NHS consultants have done private work for as long as I can remember. It's no different from a State School teacher giving private tuition.
The money grubbing quacks leach off their private patients but, when things get hairy, bail and send their victims to NHS hospitals. It's a long running scandal.
Where is the scandal? Should these people be disbarred from NHS treatment because they have previously used private treatment?
Everyone should benefit from their hard work. Those that have more should pay more. Income required to survive or live a modest decent life should be taxed more lightly than income received beyond that. Income received from an extracted rent (in the economic sense) should be taxed more highly than genuine wealth creation
I don't agree with a single one of those propositions as a general principle. You should be looking at the effect after spending, not before.
In practice, a workable taxation system will usually satisfy most of them.
You don't agree with any of these proporsitions?!? Did you mean "I don't disagree"?
No, I don't agree with any of those propositions for judging a taxation system.
@isam Nope. In my reply to you, I agreed that some were concerned that he'd only appeal to hard left types. But there was also the other factors that I mentioned too, and certainly no overall consensus that a centrist type would be best. Indeed many wanted a Blue Labour kind of strategy that Andy Burnham had more recently embraced. Many saw Jon Crudas ideas as the way to go even back then.
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
People made the same warnings you make about JRM about Corbyn, it's just a fact. We can carry on all day with this but I doubt we will get anywhere
It's not a fact. No one was concerned that Corbyn wouldn't win over under 40s or Londoners.
@isam Nope. In my reply to you, I agreed that some were concerned that he'd only appeal to hard left types. But there was also the other factors that I mentioned too, and certainly no overall consensus that a centrist type would be best. Indeed many wanted a Blue Labour kind of strategy that Andy Burnham had more recently embraced. Many saw Jon Crudas ideas as the way to go even back then.
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
People made the same warnings you make about JRM about Corbyn, it's just a fact. We can carry on all day with this but I doubt we will get anywhere
It's not a fact. No one was concerned that Corbyn wouldn't win over under 40s or Londoners.
It's a fact that people said he wouldn't appeal to the voters his party needed to win over, which is your criticism of JRM. You often misremember, I'll leave you to it
Which, much as your Betfair account likes it, is not really the best use of scarce public funds when the government's books have a £50bn hole in them! Likewise, my parents spent theirs on a winter holiday last year.
Better to tie it to Pensions Credit, so that it goes to those who struggle to get through the winter - rather than as a nice Christmas bonus to the middle classes.
No doubt true but which Conservative or Labour (or indeed LD) politician is going to have the courage to stand up and say that ? I agree the WFA is a waste of money and needs to be better targeted at those pensioners who actually need it but in political terms what would be the effect of saying that ?
The election really killed off the idea that a party could be honest wbout hard choices.
Doubtless that will be the conclusion drawn by politicians but is it true? Couldn't you as easily make the opposite case -- that the Conservatives were undone by not being honest with voters?
The Conservative manifesto (unlike Labour's) was uncosted..
Labour's manifesto was costed? Corbyn didn't even know how much student "debt" he was promising to write off!
Mr. Meeks, indeed. What must be considered is how much is raised, not hitting the wealthy as some sort of puritanical punishment (which also drives revenue down). That's why moral crusading wealth taxes are demented.
There is a significant demographic that would disagree, I suspect. Quite a lot of people simply want other people levelled down through taxation. Whatever the money collected is then used for is a bonus, but definitely secondary to the main objective of equalising wealth downwards.
If the money taken were simply piled in a field and burnt there would I think be people who would be made happy by that.
@isam Nope. In my reply to you, I agreed that some were concerned that he'd only appeal to hard left types. But there was also the other factors that I mentioned too, and certainly no overall consensus that a centrist type would be best. Indeed many wanted a Blue Labour kind of strategy that Andy Burnham had more recently embraced. Many saw Jon Crudas ideas as the way to go even back then.
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
People made the same warnings you make about JRM about Corbyn, it's just a fact. We can carry on all day with this but I doubt we will get anywhere
It's not a fact. No one was concerned that Corbyn wouldn't win over under 40s or Londoners.
It's a fact that people said he wouldn't appeal to the voters his party needed to win over, which is your criticism of JRM. You often misremember, I'll leave you to it
Well he didn't. That's why he didn't win a majority.
Given that it appears you've forgetting the GE result, it's a big cheeky of you to accuse me of misremembering. Looks like you've started a debate that you don't want to finish - if that's the case it's very simple, don't reply to me posts.
Mr. Stodge, 'get everything for free' is a funny way of describing getting to keep your own money, which you were taxed on when you earnt it, are taxed on when you spend it, and are taxed on when you save it. And when you die, of course.
The very wealthy are also a lot more mobile. Chase enough of them away and the slice of cake may be higher in percentage terms but the size of the cake has shrunk so much overall revenue is down.
Those with more already contribute more in both relative and absolute terms.
And things like 'wealth' taxes are just a great way of damaging an already low savings rate and harming those who earn little but have saved what they can (and you can be damned sure the very wealthy will be able to just shove their money in a less grasping country for saving purposes).
Taxation is the price we pay for the existence and continuation of a reasonably ordered society. Whether it's the Police, nuclear missiles or having your children educated and your rubbish cleared, these "services" have to be paid for and whether you do it through general taxation or an individual contract with a refuse collector or a local warlord to provide you and your family protection, you'd still pay for it somehow.
The balance (actual and philosophical) between the State or the individual/family as provider is an interesting topic. In many societies, the elderly come back to live with and be cared for by their children in a far greater way than happens in the West as a result (I believe) of mobility.
It was fascinating to see a few contributors on here threatening to move their money offshore (and indeed themselves as well) if Corbyn became Prime Minister. As you say, the very wealthy have mobility and it seems their patriotism only extends as far as their wallets.
I still think those with more should contribute more and those with less should pay less.
I also think other factors affect "savings" - low interest rates and an economic culture based on consumption. Those who have property of course don't have to do anything as their asset value increase year on year outstrips inflation and it's a nest egg for the children too.
I agree, I just think I already pay too much and I object to your kind of sentiment being trotted out as an insightful new proposal when it is already excessively the case.
@isam Nope. In my reply to you, I agreed that some were concerned that he'd only appeal to hard left types. But there was also the other factors that I mentioned too, and certainly no overall consensus that a centrist type would be best. Indeed many wanted a Blue Labour kind of strategy that Andy Burnham had more recently embraced. Many saw Jon Crudas ideas as the way to go even back then.
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
People made the same warnings you make about JRM about Corbyn, it's just a fact. We can carry on all day with this but I doubt we will get anywhere
It's not a fact. No one was concerned that Corbyn wouldn't win over under 40s or Londoners.
It's a fact that people said he wouldn't appeal to the voters his party needed to win over, which is your criticism of JRM. You often misremember, I'll leave you to it
Well he didn't. That's why he didn't win a majority.
Given that it appears you've forgetting the GE result, it's a big cheeky of you to accuse me of misremembering. Looks like you've started a debate that you don't want to finish - if that's the case it's very simple, don't reply to me posts.
I just pointed out that the case you make against JRM was the case made against Corbyn, I can't help it that you won't accept that.
Comments
Indeed, there's plenty of evidence that up till about 18th May, he was repelling existing voters.
The food in the NHS hospital was remarkably good. She got a menu she chose from and she need never have had the same meal twice, though she did several times because she liked the food.
There was also much less of a sense of sort-yourself-out about the NHS than I had expected. With the hip operation she was discharged and she was then on her own; nobody contacted her to arrange physio appointments, she had to do all that herself (or rather I did).
When she was discharged from the NHS the physios turned up the next day and have done so ever since.
The private hospital building was nicer. The NHS one was a former workhouse site to which modern units have been added. The one she was in, and the most recent addition, was built in 1983, and inside it looked thoroughly beaten up.
I know it was 1983 because it was going up when I worked there as a cleaner in school holidays back then. It was a slightly eerie feeling to cut through those old workhouse buildings on the way to her ward. The food I used to help dish up in them was 70s school food - slop, really. The food's changed and the workhouse buildings are wards no longer. It does show up the stuff about the NHS being this huge gift to the nation though. As far as I can tell the 1947 NHS consisted mainly of existing workhouses and hospitals that were nationalised and rebranded.
No. By far the larger effect has been the change in lower tax threshold, more than swamping that. In effect, it's been to reduce the rate for the very lowest from 20% to 0%, and has affected well over an order of magnitude more people.
The Conservative manifesto (unlike Labour's) was uncosted. If the numbers had been there, then it might have been clearer that (as many stated on here at the time) the dementia tax would actually leave those affected better off. Or that means-testing WFA would not leave pensioners to freeze.
It's the cynical omission of numbers that cost the majority. CCHQ was hoist by its own petard.
But yes, it will need to be unwound once the govt starts earning more than it's spending - which, with interest rates on the floor and inflation still low is going to take a long time.
Also, huzzah for my right answer!
@Sean_F don't recall that the hard left type criticisms were rooted in fears of scaring off all existing voters just the moderate, swing voter types. And tbf, Corbyn did not win Middle England or CD2Es overall on June 8th. His success really came from young voters, non voters and anti Tory voters.
If the money taken were simply piled in a field and burnt there would I think be people who would be made happy by that.
Given that it appears you've forgetting the GE result, it's a big cheeky of you to accuse me of misremembering. Looks like you've started a debate that you don't want to finish - if that's the case it's very simple, don't reply to me posts.