Support NeoGAF

[Fernando Fernandez]

Or by dismantling the army. And Trident!

Who needs missles that fire in the wrong direction anyway.

 

[Spaghetti]

Ugh. Great.

This doesn't fit my 'Tories are dodgy' narrative I've been peddling to the in-laws at all...

Joke post?

The well runs deep on that issue. It runs deep on all ends of the political spectrum, really, but the Tories do very well at sleeze.

I mean, just look at Liam Fox. Fucking astounding he was dug out of his political grave by May.

 

[excowboy]

Karl McCartney, Conservative MP for Lincoln, says Electoral Commission executive team should resign, and if they don't the EC should be abolished.

So, pleased to see justice done and an adherence to transparency in politics served then Karl?

 

[JonathanEx]

Karl's a bit of a nob. Always has been. I like to remember when his Twitter was "hacked".

Anyway let's not forget the Electoral Commission did find wrongdoing and fine the Conservative party, so it's not like they led a pointless partisan witchhunt.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Well, they already said they'd raising corporation tax in addition to the income tax for >80k earners. No numbers yet.

Better get Diane Abbot on the phone, she's sure to have some numbers.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The EC fined the Tories, the LDs and Labour after the last election. This is more authoritarian nastiness from an increasingly authoritarian and nasty Tory party.

 

[Morat]

The EC fined the Tories, the LDs and Labour after the last election. This is more authoritarian nastiness from an increasingly authoritarian and nasty Tory party.

Shh now, don't want get sued by Tory HQ.

Seriously though, nothing says confidence in your position like threatening to sue people for defamation seconds after you are cleared.

 

[Jezbollah]

Shh now, don't want get sued by Tory HQ.

Seriously though, nothing says confidence in your position like threatening to sue people for defamation seconds after you are cleared.

To be fair if everyone was to sue for defamation within political circles, the most lucrative career you could have would be as a lawyer.

 

[MJLord]

Better get Diane Abbot on the phone, she's sure to have some numbers.

 

[JonathanEx]

(makes note, will still this idea for a video on the next Abbot number-ism)

 

[w1ck3dn1nj4]

Austerity is a load of shit, and never works out in the long term. 99% of the time it fails in the short term as well.

As much as austerity hurts, you’ve got to face reality sometimes. It is like the credits cards are all maxed out, due to years and years of carefree spending. Very soon you’ll run into problems of minimum payments just to survive. The cut has to come from somewhere eventually and the sooner you own up to this, the better.

 

[Maledict]

As much as austerity hurts, you've got to face reality sometimes. It is like the credits cards are all maxed out, due to years and years of carefree spending. Very soon you'll run into problems of minimum payments just to survive. The cut has to come from somewhere eventually and the sooner you own up to this, the better.

I don't want to sound rude, but as soon as you use a credit card metaphor you show that you have absolutely zero understanding of government finance how how our economy works. Zero.

Cuts during a recession is bad. You need to make the cuts when shrinking the public sector won't compound private sector woes.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

I don't want to sound rude, but as soon as you use a credit card metaphor you show that you have absolutely zero understanding of government finance how how our economy works. Zero.

Cuts during a recession is bad. You need to make the cuts when shrinking the public sector won't compound private sector woes.

It isn't cutting during a recession that is bad, it's not reinvesting the money in a productive area of the economy.

If you cut nothing during a recession you inject bigger and bigger doses of inflation, which was the central reason that the post-war consensus fell apart and market reforms were necessary.

The only people that still dispute this are the old fashioned socialists.

 

[phisheep]

I'm going to attempt to be polite about this.

If you could try not to compare banning needless animal cruelty to enshrining in law my right to fucking exist that would be pleasant, ta.


Like, seriously, this is a half-step removed from the tired "Gay marriage will lead to legalised bestiality" arguments, just coming at it from the other direction. Conflating gay rights with animal rights is incredibly, self-evidently homophobic.

That's not what I'm doing, and I'm truly sorry that you took it that way.

I'm comparing the political processes that lead to one section of the population seeking to impose their morality on everyone else, and that's something that applies to big things and small things alike. Doesn't mean I am saying the small things are like the big things.

 

[Spaghetti]

I don't want to sound rude, but as soon as you use a credit card metaphor you show that you have absolutely zero understanding of government finance how how our economy works. Zero.

Yep.

Unfortunately it was Davey Cameron's go-to line about justifying cuts, and seems to have stuck.

 

[Hazzuh]

Labour still ahead in London. I'm a little surprised the LDs aren't doing better.

London Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 41% (+4)
CON: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 14% (-)
UKIP: 6% (-3)
GRN 3 (-2)

(via @YouGov / 27 Apr - 02 May)

 

[Maledict]

Labour still ahead in London. I'm a little surprised the LDs aren't doing better.

London Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 41% (+4)
CON: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 14% (-)
UKIP: 6% (-3)
GRN 3 (-2)

(via @YouGov / 27 Apr - 02 May)

For the bits of London that are hard remain, e.g my area, the lib dem message isn't strong enough to be frank. IT sounds almost as wishy washy as labours. They need to out more space between them and labour, and campaign locally in outright refusal of Brexit.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Labour still ahead in London. I'm a little surprised the LDs aren't doing better.

London Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 41% (+4)
CON: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 14% (-)
UKIP: 6% (-3)
GRN 3 (-2)

(via @YouGov / 27 Apr - 02 May)

London might as well be mars, and that is a significant chunk of the problem in our country.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

For the bits of London that are hard remain, e.g my area, the lib dem message isn't strong enough to be frank. IT sounds almost as wishy washy as labours. They need to out more space between them and labour, and campaign locally in outright refusal of Brexit.

I think this hits on a good point, which is that due to the dominant right, it's hard to give a strong Remain message - the deluge of abuse and "deniers of democracy" shrieks would drown out your campaign.

Our policy is a second referendum - "a chance to Remain if you want to". Outright ignoring Brexit would destroy any chance we have of holding any seat with a sizeable Brexit vote - and ultimately that's bad for progressives if we lose seats!

Not fun or fair but there it is.

We're being heavily crowded out of this campaign in the vast majority of seats anyway. In safe Labour/Tory seats, nobody's piping up saying "I'll be voting Lib Dem" because we got hammered so badly in 2015. And what this has caused is a massive rise in the Tory vote when the opposition left the field.

Had Clegg's 2010 party been fighting this election, or even Kennedy's 2005 party, we'd be a shoe-in for actually winning!

 

[Theonik]

For the bits of London that are hard remain, e.g my area, the lib dem message isn't strong enough to be frank. IT sounds almost as wishy washy as labours. They need to out more space between them and labour, and campaign locally in outright refusal of Brexit.

I'd rather they don't tbh. A labour/LibDem split is the worst possible scenario and benefits the Tory position with leave voters converging on them.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It isn't cutting during a recession that is bad, it's not reinvesting the money in a productive area of the economy.

If you cut nothing during a recession you inject bigger and bigger doses of inflation, which was the central reason that the post-war consensus fell apart and market reforms were necessary.

The only people that still dispute this are the old fashioned socialists.

Y'what? Where on earth did you learn your economics? I wasn't aware literally every non-RBC economist was now a socialist (although tbf I'd love it if that was the case).

Sometimes I think I should do an Economics GAF thread. Not even for the cutting edge stuff, literally for first year undergraduate 'tools of the trade' business.

 

[Maledict]

As crab has said, you need to stop thinking of yourself as a national party. You aren't, in Westminster terms. You need MPS more than votes diffused across the country, and your current strategy isn't going to lead to the big gains necessary I think.

Yes, the right wing press would shriek about running a hard remain stance in Vauxhall. So what? The people you need don't read that, and it might give you a pick up here. Kate Hoeys seat should on paper be one of the most vulnerable to flipping, but unless something bizarre happens she's going to be home safe.

Campaign locally, like the lib dems do for local government. Lambeth will happily vote against the national media, and has done so repeatedly over the last decade. In 2006 it was the only council to go *too* labour. In 2010 and 2014 labour increased their majorities. In the AV vote lambeth was one of the very few boroughs in favour of AV. It was also the highest remain vote in the Uk. Running a labour-lite campaign won't get you this seat, and I don't think it's going to lead to big pick ups elsewhere. Show some damn passion and spark and show you're willing to *fight* for something.

 

[Maledict]

I'd rather they don't tbh. A labour/LibDem split is the worst possible scenario and benefits the Tory position with leave voters converging on them.

I'm talking about a locally driven London campaign, from the perspective of a safe labour seat with a hard Brexit Labour MP. London is different to the rest of the UK, and you won't see the same surge here for the tories you will elsewhere.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The top of the Telegraph this morning had a rumour about 100 Labour MPs threatening to create a "Progressive" bloc in the Commons, away from the Labour whip, if Corbyn doesn't resign.

I thus had a nice what-if this morning where this Progressive grouping has a sit-down with Farron and agree a pact where the Lib Dems end up, against all the odds, as the Opposition. Obviously impossible (I'd imagine you'd get one of the "Progressive" MPs acting as co-leader at the VERY least) but it's a nice way to pass a boring work day.

 

[TimmmV]

That's not what I'm doing, and I'm truly sorry that you took it that way.

I'm comparing the political processes that lead to one section of the population seeking to impose their morality on everyone else, and that's something that applies to big things and small things alike. Doesn't mean I am saying the small things are like the big things.

Then what's the alternative?

On any divisive issue, whether that's on animal cruelty, gun control, recognising gay people as human, death penalty, or whatever, the Government ultimately will have to pick a side either way. You could also argue that someones morality was already being imposed in the first place with whatever the status quo is (so if fox hunting is legal, the morality of its supporters is imposed, and so on with the other issues)

I get your point (and agree with it) that just because something has popular support doesn't inherently mean its the right thing to do, but I don't see how that can be extended to the government should do nothing.

Y'what? Where on earth did you learn your economics? I wasn't aware literally every non-RBC economist was now a socialist (although tbf I'd love it if that was the case).

Probably at the Austrian school, am i rite??

Spoiler

sorry

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Maledict, I think you have the right thought but the wrong conclusion. The Liberal Democrats do need to think in local terms... but of the 13 English seats they can win on a 5% swing (e.g. by cutting the gap between them and the biggest party by 10%), 9 voted Leave. The more pro-Remain the LDs go, the less likely they are to pick up seats! If they were to focus on their meaningful local battles, they'd be less pro-Remain, not more.

 

[Maledict]

Maledict, I think you have the right thought but the wrong conclusion. The Liberal Democrats do need to think in local terms... but of the 13 English seats they can win on a 5% swing (e.g. by cutting the gap between them and the biggest party by 10%), 9 voted Leave. The more pro-Remain team LDs go, the less likely they are to pick up seats! If they were to focus on their meaningful local battles, they'd be less pro-Remain, not more.

I'm talking about my seat specifically though. It's the only way they can win *here*, in a seat that should be ripe for a pick up despite Tte current labour margins. I absolutely agree that elsewhere in the country they don't run a hard remain campaign.

I think their problem is they are shackled to this weird, half way house party position that prevents them going in either direction fully.

(I do think that looking at their potential seats in therms of the % margin from the last election is tricky though, because so much has changed. Some of those seats may well be lost to them forever, whereas other seats that were far out of reach might now be in play with the right campaign).

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Y'what? Where on earth did you learn your economics? I wasn't aware literally every non-RBC economist was now a socialist (although tbf I'd love it if that was the case).

Sometimes I think I should do an Economics GAF thread. Not even for the cutting edge stuff, literally for first year undergraduate 'tools of the trade' business.

I, a soft socialist, was taught economics by surprisingly objective an arch thatcherite four four years at school.

Inflation was the defining matter of the british economy after 1945.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

That's not entirely true - there are more Remain seats we can win than Leave seats, and that includes trying to hold our current crop.

For example, there are three Leave seats we have - Carshalton, Southport and North Norfolk. If we lost all three and Richmond, which is going to be tough to hold (but I think we will - Goldsmith standing is good for us), then you still have East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, Twickenham, Bermondsey, Yeovil, Lewes, Cambridge, Oxford West, and Eastleigh.

Then there are about 10 other seats which we have a shot at, and some of those are Leave areas (St. Ives for example).

If lots of people tune in to the leader interviews, town halls and debates and get a good idea of what the Lib Dems stand for, and we somehow get to 18% or so, we do have quite a lot of areas we could do well in.

But we can't do well if we stand up and ask ourselves to be punched in the face by spitting in the beer of Leavers.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I, a soft socialist, was taught economics by surprisingly objective an arch thatcherite four four years at school.

Aiesh, either they were terrible or you have badly misremembered. A recession is a reduction in the amount of stuff you make (GDP). Broadly speaking, that can happen for one of two reasons: people want less stuff, or it becomes more difficult to make stuff (more technically, a demand shock and a supply shock). If your recession was from a supply shock (1970s and increased OPEC prices), then increasing consumer spending will increase inflation, yes, because there's more money going round but supply is constrained and can't expand, so prices increase to soak it up. But increased spending on investment should push supply back out and actually lower inflation.

If your recession was from a demand shock (2007 financial crisis), you can still produce the same amount of stuff, but people want less (because they don't have any money). If you give them money, things go back to normal - this is called counter-cyclical policy, and is usually handled by the central bank lowering the interest rates, and sometimes by governments spending more. Inflation won't go up because supply isn't constrained - in response to people getting more money, firms produce more stuff. Conversely, if you take money away, people want even less stuff, and your recession gets even worse!

This is a simplified picture, but gives you an outline of conventional economic thought and is not really disputed outside of a few niche schools.

 

[Theonik]

I'm talking about a locally driven London campaign, from the perspective of a safe labour seat with a hard Brexit Labour MP. London is different to the rest of the UK, and you won't see the same surge here for the tories you will elsewhere.

I don't see Tory votes dropping significantly in London seats despite the remain backing.
Personally I'm fine with any outcome that is not Tory, so I don't want to see LibDems contesting labour seats. Please understand.

 

[Hazzuh]

For the bits of London that are hard remain, e.g my area, the lib dem message isn't strong enough to be frank. IT sounds almost as wishy washy as labours. They need to out more space between them and labour, and campaign locally in outright refusal of Brexit.

I living in Corbyn's constituency and I got a leaflet talking about how only the LDs could stop Brexit etc. It's the only campaign material I've received so far.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Personally I'm fine with any outcome that is not Tory, so I don't want to see LibDems contesting labour seats. Please understand.

This is Vauxhall, represented by an arch-Leaver - not a Tory/Labour marginal!

 

[Maledict]

I don't see Tory votes dropping significantly in London seats despite the remain backing.
Personally I'm fine with any outcome that is not Tory, so I don't want to see LibDems contesting labour seats. Please understand.

This seat is a choice between a labour MP who is a hard brexiter, friend of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, extremely pro-fox hunting and who had one of the worse records on gay rights of any labour mp in parliament during the new labour years versus whoever the lib dems out up. That's the choice here.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's not entirely true - there are more Remain seats we can win than Leave seats, and that includes trying to hold our current crop.

For example, there are three Leave seats we have - Carshalton, Southport and North Norfolk. If we lost all three and Richmond, which is going to be tough to hold (but I think we will - Goldsmith standing is good for us), then you still have East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, Twickenham, Bermondsey, Yeovil, Lewes, Cambridge, Oxford West, and Eastleigh.

I have Lewes as incredibly marginally going for Leave. To be fair, you can't be sure either way because we never got constituency figures and have to work with extrapolations from district results, but sure, we'll call that one a toss-up.

I make it, of the Lib Dem's current 9 seats, 6 went Remain, 3 went Leave. Of their 16 UK-wide winnable seats they don't currently hold, 8 went Leave, 5 went Remain, and 1 is Lewes. Overall, that's 11 Remain, 11 Leave, and Lewes, so you can see the Liberal Democrat's dilemma - going hard-Remain shuts them out of half the seats they want to win. I don't think, electorally, it's a sensible idea for them.

Of course, if it's a core principle, then absolutely, advocate it. I think it is really important for a third party like the Liberal Democrats that are incredibly unlikely to be determinative in the legislative to fight for their principles - they act as the outriders and can expand the frame of what the public talks about. I think people just have to be aware that there isn't the market for some hard-Remain party that lots on this forum want, and that going hard-Remain is, electorally if not in principle, going to hold the Lib Dems back.

I think that's why Maledict's suggestion is also difficult. The Liberal Democrats can't really run on hard-Remain in one constituency and ambivalent in another. You can't isolate campaigns like that. Parties are forced into having a party wide message just by virtue of how media works in the Internet era. They're not going to win Vauxhall anyway, bluntly, and it's not worth 'contaminating' winnable seats with a damaging message sent out from a seat they can't win.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

We appear to be in broad agreement, then. I'd be curious to know which seats you're thinking are on our targeting list, though. I didn't mention a few.

Certainly there are lots of seats that we have strength in that voted to Leave, but I'm not convinced that's a majority.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We appear to be in broad agreement, then. I'd be curious to know which seats you're thinking are on our targeting list, though. I didn't mention a few.

Cambridge
Eastbourne
Lewes
Thornbury and Yate
Twickenham
Dunbartonshire East
Kingston and Surbiton
St Ives
Edinburgh West
Torbay
Sutton and Cheam
Bath
Burnley
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Yeovil
Fife North East

Anything beyond that is fantasy land. Also, I think you've definitely lost Richmond.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

How do we feel about this free adult education thing Labour are advocating?

I think it's an excellent idea and we really need something government-led to increase the skills of the workforce, but the messaging is absolutely atrocious. 'NHS for education' is a pithy way of putting it if you already know what it is, but as a first exposure, it's really hard to parse - "So it's like free training for nurses then, right?". I suppose the upside is that it might be something the Tories quietly steal as their own a few years down the line, as nobody will recognise it as a Labour idea.

As an aside, 'fully costed and paid for by an increase in corporation tax' seems to be Labour's equivalent of 'strong and stable'. It seems to have been said so many times with regards to so many different policies, it makes you wonder exactly how much they plan to raise corporation tax!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

As an aside, 'fully costed and paid for by an increase in corporation tax' seems to be Labour's equivalent of 'strong and stable'. It seems to have been said so many times with regards to so many different policies, it makes you wonder exactly how much they plan to raise corporation tax!

18% to 26%. IFS estimates show it raising £19bn in the short-term, and slightly less in subsequent years as companies react accordingly. It's actually sufficient to pay for almost everything they've announced in and of itself, although in subsequent years you'd probably have to see NI and income tax increases on the top earners.

 

[Razzer]

Y'what? Where on earth did you learn your economics? I wasn't aware literally every non-RBC economist was now a socialist (although tbf I'd love it if that was the case).

Sometimes I think I should do an Economics GAF thread. Not even for the cutting edge stuff, literally for first year undergraduate 'tools of the trade' business.

I for one would love an economics thread. I always feel so confused when the topic comes up.

 

[Spuck-uk]

I don't want to sound rude, but as soon as you use a credit card metaphor you show that you have absolutely zero understanding of government finance how how our economy works. Zero.

Cuts during a recession is bad. You need to make the cuts when shrinking the public sector won't compound private sector woes.

Fucking. This.

x 1000000

 

[Spuck-uk]

The top of the Telegraph this morning had a rumour about 100 Labour MPs threatening to create a "Progressive" bloc in the Commons, away from the Labour whip, if Corbyn doesn't resign.

I thus had a nice what-if this morning where this Progressive grouping has a sit-down with Farron and agree a pact where the Lib Dems end up, against all the odds, as the Opposition. Obviously impossible (I'd imagine you'd get one of the "Progressive" MPs acting as co-leader at the VERY least) but it's a nice way to pass a boring work day.

It's the Telegraph, so I'm going to assume they got it from the arse of Simon Danczuk or just flat out made it up. They're the Fox News of british papers.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Cambridge
Eastbourne
Lewes
Thornbury and Yate
Twickenham
Dunbartonshire East
Kingston and Surbiton
St Ives
Edinburgh West
Torbay
Sutton and Cheam
Bath
Burnley
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Yeovil
Fife North East

Anything beyond that is fantasy land. Also, I think you've definitely lost Richmond.

I am indeed still curious how your mate's internal polling numbers work out to be so strongly pro-Goldsmith. It's a marginal, certainly, but it's not a done deal. They should also be cautious - it was widely believed that Goldsmith would hold his seat until the very last few days of the campaign.

I think we can lose Richmond, but the only reasons I entertain it is because you've seen statistics I've not, and the recent local elections showed how strong Tory turnout has been. Olney's been a solid MP and there is no good reason to vote out and then reinstate Goldsmith within a few months.

 

[Spuck-uk]

That's not entirely true - there are more Remain seats we can win than Leave seats, and that includes trying to hold our current crop.

For example, there are three Leave seats we have - Carshalton, Southport and North Norfolk. If we lost all three and Richmond, which is going to be tough to hold (but I think we will - Goldsmith standing is good for us), then you still have East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West, Twickenham, Bermondsey, Yeovil, Lewes, Cambridge, Oxford West, and Eastleigh.

Then there are about 10 other seats which we have a shot at, and some of those are Leave areas (St. Ives for example).

If lots of people tune in to the leader interviews, town halls and debates and get a good idea of what the Lib Dems stand for, and we somehow get to 18% or so, we do have quite a lot of areas we could do well in.

But we can't do well if we stand up and ask ourselves to be punched in the face by spitting in the beer of Leavers.

I sincerely hope you absolutely smash Goldsmith in Richmond. Even for the tories he's an absolute shitbag.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I sincerely hope you absolutely smash Goldsmith in Lambeth

Richmond, but that is the idea.

Olney won from a start of about 29% vs 56% only a few months ago, but the Tories are popular. We've seen stable support in London.

The major challenges are the likely major growth in turnout and the current Maymania.

 

[War Peaceman]

I'm no Lib Dem fan, but I too hope Goldsmith is crushed. That he allowed his campaign to be so racist and despicable tells you everything you need to know about him.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I am indeed still curious how your mate's internal polling numbers work out to be so strongly pro-Goldsmith. It's a marginal, certainly, but it's not a done deal. They should also be cautious - it was widely believed that Goldsmith would hold his seat until the very last few days of the campaign.

My understanding is this - she won 49.68 to 45.15 on a turnout of 53.44%. Predicted Richmond Park turnout for the GE is 75%, or put another way, Olney won by 35.37 to 32.15%, with 28.8% of the vote that will pop up in the GE unaccounted for. That 28.8% is... pretty overwhelmingly Tory. The internal figures don't even show it being especially close, it should be a walk in the

Spoiler

Richmond

park for Goldsmith.

I really want it to be otherwise - I can't stand Goldsmith. But that's just the way it is. It was an incredible feat to take that seat in the first place and relied on a stars-aligning situation of by-election, good candidate, bad opposing candidate, shadows of the Mayoral campaign, and so on. It's not going to happen again.

 

[HaloRose]

Panelbase:

CON 48 (+1)
LAB 31 (+1)
LD 8 (-2)
UKIP 5 (=)
GRN 2 (=)

If the Lib Dems don't get a double-digit vote share on 8th June surely Farron has to go?
He's squandering one of the greatest opportunities for success (or at least recovery) that a party has ever been offered.

 

[excowboy]

Aiesh, either they were terrible or you have badly misremembered. A recession is a reduction in the amount of stuff you make (GDP). Broadly speaking, that can happen for one of two reasons: people want less stuff, or it becomes more difficult to make stuff (more technically, a demand shock and a supply shock). If your recession was from a supply shock (1970s and increased OPEC prices), then increasing consumer spending will increase inflation, yes, because there's more money going round but supply is constrained and can't expand, so prices increase to soak it up. But increased spending on investment should push supply back out and actually lower inflation.

If your recession was from a demand shock (2007 financial crisis), you can still produce the same amount of stuff, but people want less (because they don't have any money). If you give them money, things go back to normal - this is called counter-cyclical policy, and is usually handled by the central bank lowering the interest rates, and sometimes by governments spending more. Inflation won't go up because supply isn't constrained - in response to people getting more money, firms produce more stuff. Conversely, if you take money away, people want even less stuff, and your recession gets even worse!

This is a simplified picture, but gives you an outline of conventional economic thought and is not really disputed outside of a few niche schools.

This is a very succinct explanation - cheers. I'm in no way an economist but it boggles my mind how people have completely swallowed the idea that the economy of a nation is just like their household finances. I'm hearing it a lot in various vox-pops in this campaign. It was deeply frustrating to me that in the last Parliament Labour, under Milliband, didn't make any defense of their record on the economy (for example, the economy was growing when the coalition came in due to Alastair Darling increasing spending/creating some liquidity).

They completely retreated against the Tory narrative that the economy == household finances ('we need to fix the roof whilst the sun is shining') and its a big reason why their current policies are being slammed as uncosted - the public buys the narrative that Labour can't be trusted with finances. Its why at the last PMQ's Theresa May still managed to describe a global financial crash as Labour's fault and no-one batted a fucking eyelid!

How do we feel about this free adult education thing Labour are advocating?

I think it's an excellent idea and we really need something government-led to increase the skills of the workforce, but the messaging is absolutely atrocious. 'NHS for education' is a pithy way of putting it if you already know what it is, but as a first exposure, it's really hard to parse - "So it's like free training for nurses then, right?". I suppose the upside is that it might be something the Tories quietly steal as their own a few years down the line, as nobody will recognise it as a Labour idea.

As an aside, 'fully costed and paid for by an increase in corporation tax' seems to be Labour's equivalent of 'strong and stable'. It seems to have been said so many times with regards to so many different policies, it makes you wonder exactly how much they plan to raise corporation tax!

As someone who had to give up the career they trained for due to health reasons, this would be amazing. I can only work part-time, so I can't afford to train up in something else as if I make the time I don't have the finance, and vice-versa. If an idea like this was implemented successfully it could be truly transformative. I'm warming up to Labour through this campaign - maybe an idea like this is pie in the sky, but its the first policy with some genuine vision that I've heard from any party.

 

[boxoctosis]

I sincerely hope you absolutely smash Goldsmith in Richmond. Even for the tories he's an absolute shitbag.

I consider that he blocked me on twitter for being very rude to him to be a minor life achievement.