How many of you read the main parties' manifestos?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 WaterMonkey 08 Jun 2017
How many on here actually took the time to read the main manifestos?
I can't believe the amount of my facebook friends who have not bothered to read them and yet share memes and rubbish propaganda about subjects. Particularly the crap spouted about the Tories wanting to get rid of the NHS.

Frankly I think if you don't read the manifestos you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

So own up, who voted without reading the manifestos?
6
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Only one of the main parties made any effort to contact me in any form this time.

Why should I make the effort to read the other parties manifestos if their candidates couldn't be arsed to make any effort?
9
 Tyler 08 Jun 2017
In reply to timjones:
> Only one of the main parties made any effort to contact me in any form this time.Why should I make the effort to read the other parties manifestos if their candidates couldn't be arsed to make any effort?
Because if everyone only votes for the party that contacts them we will always vote for the party with the most money for campaigning
Because it's important
Because there are millions of households but relatively few party activists
Because you might be curious
Because most mail shots end up as landfill anyway
Because it is the most efficient method of understanding the issues
Post edited at 11:38
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:

Sorry I don't buy the theory that only one out of the 3 main parties can afford to pay the postman to stuff a leaflet through the letterbox.

They've all burnt more than enough money transporting their leaders around towns and cities, but they can't afford a stamp in order to make the most basic contact with rural voters?

It's poor and they don't deserve my vote!
8
OP WaterMonkey 08 Jun 2017
In reply to timjones:

>It's poor and they don't deserve my vote!

So rather than read the manifestos and work out, in your opinion, which would be best for the country you throw your dummy out of the pram and don't vote or vote for the one who did post (a small part of their manifesto) through your door?

We're fecked aren't we!!
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> >It's poor and they don't deserve my vote!So rather than read the manifestos and work out, in your opinion, which would be best for the country you throw your dummy out of the pram and don't vote or vote for the one who did post (a small part of their manifesto) through your door?We're fecked aren't we!!

Not if we have good people in parliament!
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Would we better off if I'd read the manifestos from cover to cover and voted for a candidate who is doing a good impersonation of the invisible man.

A candidate whose very limited campaigning seems to be limited to a bit of a rant about foxhunting and the boast that he won't toe the party line?

A candidate whose website contains no information apart from a request for donations and volunteers?

It's pathetic and we deserve better but we can only vote for what we have available on the ballot paper.
 MonkeyPuzzle 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I'm voting for the party and candidate whose voting record is the one that I prefer. The manifesto is just a bunch of words. According to Theresa May's speeches she's a non-authoritarian, throwing her arms around the most weak and vulnerable in our society. According to her voting record she's, erm, not.

That said, I enjoyed listening to the Labour manifesto being read out on the radio from cover to cover all because it was, whoops!, leaked.
 jkarran 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I read the leaked Labour one, I didn't bother reading the Conservatives' because I couldn't vote for more of the same or their approach to brexit even if they were promising me a free magical unicorn. It's a straight 2 way choice in my constituency as far as I'm concerned. I did go meet and talk with all three candidates, two I could vote for, one I'd struggle to even if he were offering something I wanted. I have a good principled MP I like and trust, she's earned my vote.
jk
Post edited at 12:44
Frogger 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Yes, I've looked at the manifestos, and in fact it did steer my vote. Sadly though, a lot of people will be deciding how to vote based on the headlines and the soundbites, such as "he's unelectable" or "she's a lier".



 summo 08 Jun 2017
In reply to timjones:

> Sorry I don't buy the theory that only one out of the 3 main parties can afford to pay the postman to stuff a leaflet through the letterbox.They've all burnt more than enough money transporting their leaders around towns and cities, but they can't afford a stamp in order to make the most basic contact with rural voters?It's poor and they don't deserve my vote!

I'm with you. It's just lazy targeting of populations. But like when phone operators claim 99% coverage, stuff the few % who live rurally, they cost too much per capita to cover, so they are ignored.
 The New NickB 08 Jun 2017
In reply to timjones:

Have you seen the price of stamps since the Tories privatised the post office?

I was surprised not to receive any communication from the Conservatives. I live in a Labour seat, but in an area that returns a Conservative Councillor. The seat will also be on their list of targets. I've had communication from Labour via the postman and a UKIP leaflet hand delivered.
 summo 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

In 7 weeks if aspirant MP can't manage to find a way to communicate with the people in that constituency then it doesn't bode well for their efforts once in post?
 The New NickB 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I have read 5 in total, that process has reinforced my voting intention.
 Tyler 08 Jun 2017
In reply to timjones:

> Sorry I don't buy the theory that only one out of the 3 main parties can afford to pay the postman to stuff a leaflet through the letterbox.They've all burnt more than enough money transporting their leaders around towns and cities, but they can't afford a stamp in order to make the most basic contact with rural voters?It's poor and they don't deserve my vote!

Do you think a leaflet which typically tell you very little apart for a couple of biased/alarmist/cherry picked bullet points, is sufficient to make a decision?
Why do you think the only person who benefits from your vote is the candidate, do you not think voting is for the benefit of the electorate themselves (discussions around the FPTP system aside)?
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> Do you think a leaflet which typically tell you very little apart for a couple of biased/alarmist/cherry picked bullet points, is sufficient to make a decision?Why do you think the only person who benefits from your vote is the candidate, do you not think voting is for the benefit of the electorate themselves (discussions around the FPTP system aside)?

WTH did I say that the candidate is the ony person who benefits?

It's bizarre that those who joyously proclaim to have read the manifestos appear to be capable of misintertpretting a simple post here!

The constituents all benefit from having a candidate who puts in a bit of effort once they are elected, what sort of fool would vote for someone who can't even be bothered to make the simplest of efforts during the campaign?

 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> Have you seen the price of stamps since the Tories privatised the post office?

A quick Google suggests that whilst prices have risen alarmingly the biggest increases probably occured prior to privitisation?

> I was surprised not to receive any communication from the Conservatives. I live in a Labour seat, but in an area that returns a Conservative Councillor. The seat will also be on their list of targets. I've had communication from Labour via the postman and a UKIP leaflet hand delivered.

I've just looked at the communications that we have received, some are individually addressed and others aren't but none of them carries anyhting that even vaguely resembles a stamp or franking. I wonder whether any are officially posted or whether even those that are addressed are delivered under the old "postmans perk" system?

 Tyler 08 Jun 2017
In reply to timjones:
> WTH did I say that the candidate is the ony person who benefits?
I read the following two comments to mean that you saw informing yourself and voting for a particular candidate was you doing them a favour. Having re-read the posts I don't see that as an unreasonable inference but it's obviously not what you meant.
"Why should I make the effort to read the other parties manifestos if their candidates couldn't be arsed to make any effort?"
"They don't deserve my vote"
Post edited at 13:48
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> I read the following two comments to mean that you saw informing yourself and voting for a particular candidate was you doing them a favour. Having re-read the posts I don't see that as an unreasonable inference but it's obviously not what you meant."Why should I make the effort to read the other parties manifestos if their candidates couldn't be arsed to make any effort?""They don't deserve my vote"

Hold on, you appear a little lost are you suggesting that candidates don't actually want our votes
Andrew Kin 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

You make an excellent point. However I would counter that with I don't trust a word they write so whats the point in reading it.

We all know that they wont stick to their manifestos. We all know they will interpret it differently to how we read it. We all know they will use it in whatever ways suits the issues at the time. Labour will make promises they cant fund. Conservatives will make promises and then stab you in the back. Both will leave you with little more than the hope of bringing enough money home to feed and house your family and hope that we don't get blown up in a nucleur war or stabbed by some crazy IS militant. The rest is all just bullshit
OP WaterMonkey 08 Jun 2017
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:

> You make an excellent point. However I would counter that with I don't trust a word they write so whats the point in reading it.

Yes, but what else do we have to go on?
 John Cornish 08 Jun 2017
In reply to The New NickB:
I think all candidates in a constituency get one free mass postage to everyone on the electoral role in their constituency - which is sometimes the reason for joke candidates as it gets their business/brand onto a free mail shot to all constituents. for only £500, plus being on the ballot/in the local paper etc.
http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/Candidate-Mail-guide-Parliamen...
Post edited at 14:42
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I read the Labour and Conservative manifestos. I lost the will to continue somewhere in the Lib Dem manifesto.

T.
 The New NickB 08 Jun 2017
In reply to John Cornish:

I know they have historically, I have googled, but not been able to find anything. I find it odd that I have only had something in the post from one of 5 candidates.
 jezb1 08 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I'd rather not get any post from my candidates, not very environmentally friendly really.

I've read the manifestos, I reckon most people who have will find points they agree with in all of them.
 timjones 08 Jun 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> I know they have historically, I have googled, but not been able to find anything. I find it odd that I have only had something in the post from one of 5 candidates.

I did slightly better. Sadly the extra one that I got was from an independent candidate who lives miles away from the constituency and whose only policy appears to be to turn "our" entire county into a national park!
OP WaterMonkey 08 Jun 2017
In reply to jezb1:

> I've read the manifestos, I reckon most people who have will find points they agree with in all of them.

I agree. It was the bit in the Labour manifesto about supporting the rights of Gypsies and traveller communities that put me off theirs. Support people who pay nothing to society? I don't think so!

Ok, that was just part of what put me off to be fair!
3
 bearman68 11 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I read the parties manifestos. I was struck by how uninformative they were. Let's take for example the labour pledge to increase corporation tax. As it happens this had been a hot topic on conversation in our workshop in the previous few weeks. I spent a few hours looking at the relationship between tax take, and corporation tax. It is statistically significant relationship that tax take reduces with increased corporation tax rate. It has been shown time and again over nearly 100 years, and in multiple countries. So it's impossible to support. No-one wants that, whatever colour you are. How it can seriously be put into a manifesto is completely beyond me.
But I spent a number of hours examining 1 policy for 1 party, to form a robust conclusion based on stats. I can't do that for all the policies, for even the main 3 parties. Even if I read the manifestos, it doesn't help me come to a non partisan decision on where my vote should go.
In the end, I voted by gut feel and emotion - what else am I left with?
Lusk 11 Jun 2017
In reply to bearman68:

"Increase Carer’s Allowance by £11 to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance." Page 56

What's not to vote for? (when you're on £62 a week)


(just one of many we can pick on!)
 Jon Stewart 11 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I didn't read the manifestos, I used online summaries that compared the policies side-by-side.

Should I be allowed to vote or not?
1
 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to bearman68:
> Let's take for example the labour pledge to increase corporation tax. As it happens this had been a hot topic on conversation in our workshop in the previous few weeks. I spent a few hours looking at the relationship between tax take, and corporation tax. It is statistically significant relationship that tax take reduces with increased corporation tax rate. It has been shown time and again over nearly 100 years, and in multiple countries.

That's odd because I spent 30 seconds Googling similar and the first two relevant hits I got said that Corporation Tax take fell as Corporation Tax rates fell. This was for the UK in 2013:
https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2017/february/hmrc-additional-corporati...

And 2016:
https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2017/february/hmrc-additional-corporati...

Overall tax take rose but that was due to higher other corporate taxes (rates, NI etc) but that's no reason to conclude there is a negative correlation between corporation tax rates and corporation tax take. Also if there is such a correlation what rate should it be set at? 0%? I'm not for particularly high corporation tax rates but the rates at which the apex of the Laffer curve is reached is not usually as low as right wing politicians would have you believe.
Post edited at 19:18
 Tom Valentine 11 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Frankly, I think you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you actually believe the manifestos.

 BnB 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:
> That's odd because I spent 30 seconds Googling similar and the first two relevant hits I got said that Corporation Tax take fell as Corporation Tax rates fell. This was for the UK in 2013:https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2017/february/hmrc-additional-corporati...

Time to sharpen your Google skills? If I interpret those links correctly they deal only with the "additional", ie disputed, CT and not the huge undisputed majority. I'm pretty certain the overall CT take increased substantially over the period.

BBC Reality Check ran a piece to this effect when the Labour manifesto came out. They concluded that Corbyn's plans would cut tax receipts and send employment overseas.
Post edited at 19:57
 bearman68 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:

Let me just quote you for a moment "Overall tax take rose".

Googling again, it took me 3 seconds to find an alternative view. Clearly more data points are required. That's why it took me many hours. And of course the correlation is not 100%, so individual cases will not always be consistent with the overall trend.
I don't really have a dog in the fight, I just like numbers, but the view that increased tax rate increases tax take, at a minimum is a pretty ropey suggestion.

One thing I would personally support is that foreign owned companies are subject to 'economic activity' taxes, as per LD manifesto.
 Dave the Rave 11 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Nope. I know what TORY stands for and won't vote for them.
 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:
> Time to sharpen your Google skills? If I interpret those links correctly they deal only with the "additional", ie disputed, CT and not the huge undisputed majority.
I need to sharpen my internet skills generally, as I was supposed to include this link, not repeat the same one twice, sorry:
https://www.ft.com/content/6c3f1fe6-63de-11e2-84d8-00144feab49a
It says corporation tax take fell as the rate was reduced (2013).

> I'm pretty certain the overall CT take increased substantially over the period.
Due to increased profitability overall and an improving economy? Still not compelling evidence that lowering CT rates increases tax take of itself. I'm not denying that there's a balance to be struck but I don't think we need to be quite as cowed as we often are when business starts threatening all sorts of fresh avoidance tactics whenever the subject is raised.

> BBC Reality Check ran a piece to this effect when the Labour manifesto came out. They concluded that Corbyn's plans would cut tax receipts and send employment overseas.
I can't find that but I remember you linked to something similar before (possibly the same one) which you interpreted similarly but which, when I looked, actually said there was a "probability" that it wouldn't raise as much the manifesto said and a "possibility" that it might not raise any. It didn't 'conclude' anything and certainly not what you claim. That article was focused on income tax increases not CT and I didn't find the arguments that compelling, I thought the main behavioural change that it could affect was increasing pension contributions, some of the other manipulations seemed to be pretty unlikely for most (certainly for PAYE). I can't find (another 30 second Google) how labour were proposing to change dividend tax rates, I'm guessing a similar sort of higher band?
Post edited at 20:55
 Mark Bannan 11 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Frankly I think if you don't read the manifestos you shouldn't be allowed to vote. So own up, who voted without reading the manifestos?

I voted without reading the manifestos. I had made my mind up before the election was called, based on what I already know about the Tories, particularly Teresa May.

Should I be denied the right to vote? This would place me in the same category as prisoners!

M

 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to bearman68:
> Let me just quote you for a moment "Overall tax take rose".
Yep, like is said, overall tax take rose because of an increase in other taxes. Receipts from CT fell because of a decrease in the CT rate. If you're saying an increase in NI or other corporate taxes is preferable I might agree but that's not the same as saying "tax take reduces with increased corporation tax rate".


> Googling again, it took me 3 seconds to find an alternative view. Clearly more data points are required.
Clearly, but you made a conclusive statement which cannot be made without a million caveats. You used many data points from 100 years and many countries, I used two from the last five years from the country in question - who's to say one is kore accurate than the other. What works for Lichtenstein won't necessarily work for the UK, nor does what happened in 1918 necessarily have any relevance in a globalised economy. On the other hand, I possibly misinterpreted one (50%!) of my data points!

> That's why it took me many hours. And of course the correlation is not 100%, so individual cases will not always be consistent with the overall trend. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I just like numbers, but the view that increased tax rate increases tax take, at a minimum is a pretty ropey suggestion.
As is the view that decreasing the rate increases the tax take, surely? Given the millions of variables which change from year to year.

> One thing I would personally support is that foreign owned companies are subject to 'economic activity' taxes, as per LD manifesto.
Post edited at 21:22
 BnB 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:

I did post a few weeks back but that was on CT, not Income Tax. The Reality Checker seems to disappear the very next day so it's impossible to link retrospectively. Rather annoying for what ought to be a valuable and neutral resource.

With CT, the rises result not just from
GDP growth but also from a reduction in tax avoidance and an increase in inwards investment. Often the same thing in the case of multifunctionals.

Labour didn't say anything about taxation of dividends but to increase that would be a double whammy for business owners. First you pay extra on the CT, then again on the dividend. The only way to avoid this is to pay out all your profit in the form of salary (income tax) thus reducing profit to zero but then no one will trade with you because of the disparity between turnover and profit and the parlous state of your balance sheet.
 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:
> I did post a few weeks back but that was on CT, not Income Tax.
The one I'm thinking of was definitely to do with income tax, I'm not going to go back through all your posts as you have been pretty prolific the last few weeks!

> The Reality Checker seems to disappear the very next day so it's impossible to link retrospectively. Rather annoying for what ought to be a valuable and neutral resource.

> With CT, the rises result not just fromGDP growth but also from a reduction in tax avoidance and an increase in inwards investment. Often the same thing in the case of multifunctionals.
The whole "tax avoidance" thing is the one I have a problem with, it seems to be in the same category as "savings from increased efficiencies", why aren't these things being done already? (Rhetorical question, I've heard the arguments just don't buy them for many reasons).

> Labour didn't say anything about taxation of dividends but to increase that would be a double whammy for business owners. First you pay extra on the CT, then again on the dividend. The only way to avoid this is to pay out all your profit in the form of salary (income tax) thus reducing profit to zero but then no one will trade with you because of the disparity between turnover and profit and the parlous state of your balance sheet.
Right so all the bleating about the increased income tax rates applies only to wage slaves anyway, not sure how that will damage enterprise too much. I'm sure the economy would survive if the highly paid chief executive of a failing council took his skills abroad!
Post edited at 21:18
 Si dH 11 Jun 2017
In reply to bearman68:
> I read the parties manifestos. I was struck by how uninformative they were. Let's take for example the labour pledge to increase corporation tax. As it happens this had been a hot topic on conversation in our workshop in the previous few weeks. I spent a few hours looking at the relationship between tax take, and corporation tax. It is statistically significant relationship that tax take reduces with increased corporation tax rate. It has been shown time and again over nearly 100 years, and in multiple countries. So it's impossible to support.

This is of course utter bollocks. As you decrease the tax rate, then at some point the tax take clearly reduces, because ultimately you reach zero. Even if the relationship between tax rate and total tax take is very non linear, then there must be at least a range of tax rates at which the change of take is in the same direction as a given change in the rate. It follows that in this range, increasing the tax rate will increase the tax take.

The question is whether we are in that range. Given that in the current and previous parliament the tories have been engaged in reducing corporation tax below historical norms, I'd expect we almost certainly are.

Edit: you haven't actually said what was uninformative in what you've read. You just picked out an example of a policy you didn't like. That's like me saying "I read the conservative manifesto, it was really uninformative, they said they might let people decide again whether they want to go fox hunting" only worse.

P.s. I read all three main party manifestos. The others are irrelevant to my world-view because I know enough about their headline policies that I would never vote for them anyway.
In readability and presentation terms, Labour's was really good and easy to digest, the others less so - too much dense text and waffle
Post edited at 21:26
 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Si dH:
That's what I meant to say!

 BnB 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:
> Right so all the bleating about the increased income tax rates applies only to wage slaves anyway, not sure how that will damage enterprise too much. I'm sure the economy would survive if the highly paid chief executive of a failing council took his skills abroad!

Dividend rates nearly always rise with income tax. Although I didn't explain that so my apologies for not clarifying. Labour didn't put it in the manifesto becuase the average voter doesn't know what a dividend is!!

Not so good if an owner takes the company with him!!
Post edited at 21:26
1
 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:
> Dividend rates nearly always rise with income tax. Although I didn't explain that so my apologies for not clarifying. Labour didn't put it in the manifesto becuase the average voter doesn't know what a dividend is!!
Yep so, like I said the income tax increase was going to fall on the well paid and extremely well paid not business owners.

> Not so good if an owner takes the company with him!!
Well it's a game of chance, I'd be prepared to bet that the economy could cope with higher CT tax rates currently proposed (by recent budgets not by Labour manifesto) but that Brexit will have a bigger effect than anything anyway. Given that we are a large western democracy and you haven't been run out of Hebden Bridge for right wing small state views I'd be prepared to bet our views on what the rate should be would be pretty close!
Post edited at 21:34
 Si dH 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I didn't read the manifestos, I used online summaries that compared the policies side-by-side. Should I be allowed to vote or not?

Yes you should, but I'd like to point out that the online summaries, even the beeb, seemed to pick and choose what they included in their summaries in order to align with what information they think is most likely to generate news or discussion. You should be aware of this before relying on them.

I discovered this after reading the manifestos myself and then being surprised by the contents of the comparative lists. For example, the Lib Dems were more hawkish on trident than labour, saying they'd only fund 3 boats - but the manifesto comparison only said what labour and conservative policies on that subject were, implying that the lib dems hadn't mentioned it at all.
Another interesting example was that whilst labour and the lib dems both made discussion of nuclear energy in their manifestos (Lab being relatively positive about it), the Tories didn't give it a single sentence. And yet the Beeb's comparison article used a photo of Hinkley Point C to illustrate a paragraph about conservative energy policy.

So, it's worth reading them. The best written one was completely readable in under 30 minutes, I was really impressed.
 BnB 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Tyler:
> Yep so, like I said the income tax increase was going to fall on the well paid and extremely well paid not business owners.

How does that follow? Like I said, changes in income tax are always followed by changes in the taxation of dividends because, guess what, dividends are taxed to income!!*

* just by a more complex formula that Labour didn't put in their manifesto either to simplify it for the masses or because it was cobbled together in a rush.

And yes, Brexit is the biggest driver, so why scare investment away at such a sensitive time. But we're going round in circles now
Post edited at 21:53
 krikoman 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Mark Bannan:
> I had made my mind up before the election was called, based on what I already know about the Tories, particularly Teresa May.Should I be denied the right to vote?

Only if you voted Tory.

I think you're better than that though, so vote away
Post edited at 22:03
 Tyler 11 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:

> How does that follow? Like I said, changes in income tax are always followed by changes in the taxation of dividends because, guess what, dividends are taxed to income!

You say always but you also said there's nothing in the manifesto to suggest this, so possibly not? As written there was a promise that if you earned £81k salary you'd pay more tax but if you earned £81k from dividends you'd pay the same. But you're right, it would be illogical not to alter the rates but it is now (always was) academic.



 Dauphin 11 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:


>Particularly the crap spouted about the Tories wanting to get rid of the NHS.

Why get rid of it when you can repurpose it for enriching your mates beyond their wildest imaginations?

Just Imagine!

And while we are on the subject are you interested in a bridge I have for sale?


D
 Jon Stewart 11 Jun 2017
In reply to Si dH:

Thanks, interesting. The truth is that the manifestos had absolutely no impact on how I voted. I've seen the Tories in government so I know everything I need to know about them; so in FPTP I don't feel I have much choice. When I lived in a safe seat, I would vote more on policies and voting record, but here it went to a recount, so there was absolutely no choice!
 bearman68 12 Jun 2017
In reply to BnB:

One thing that is very clear to me is that people interpret data against a filter of their own political persuasion. As an engineer and scientist that's very interesting. Frustrating, but interesting. It would suggest the electoral victor is one that comes across best. (Corbyn did in this election to my mind).
I would say that many of the objectives of the parties are broadly similar. All are looking for more money for health and social care, and rail infrastructure, and so on. The idea that presentation is therefore such a critical component is interesting, and probably 'non optimum' from any numbers based view. <shrug>

<and awaits flaming>
 john arran 12 Jun 2017
In reply to bearman68:

> I would say that many of the objectives of the parties are broadly similar. All are looking for more money for health and social care, and rail infrastructure, and so on.

Your definition of "broadly" is very, er, broad. The manifestos in this election were further apart that at pretty much any other time since the 80s.
 bearman68 12 Jun 2017
In reply to Si dH:

This is of course utter bollocks. As you decrease the tax rate, then at some point the tax take clearly reduces, because ultimately you reach zero. Even if the relationship between tax rate and total tax take is very non linear, then there must be at least a range of tax rates at which the change of take is in the same direction as a given change in the rate. It follows that in this range, increasing the tax rate will increase the tax take.

You might be right - but I'm not sure we have reached that point yet. Intuitively your argument makes complete and utter sense. But I don't know if this is supported by the evidence. I agree historically low tax rates might not reflect the past history. And of course an individual case might not be in agreement with the overall data set. However, there is little doubt in my mind that JC's policy to increase tax rate was likely to reduce tax take, to the detriment of us all.
I picked corporation tax as an example, because this is a subject I had researched previously, many months before the election, to edify a discussion we were having in the workshop. (as I said).

PS what was your view of HMRC taxing some foreign owned companies based on economic activity (presumably turnover for the likes of Starbucks etc)? There is no data for that as far as I can see, but I would support that, as much as a punitive action as to increase tax.

Isn't it great that we're all different?


 bearman68 12 Jun 2017
In reply to john arran:

Well, even though the specific policies are different,the overall thrust of either of the main parties tends to be the strengthening of the economy, more money for public services, and ideas on social care. We are not talking revolution and bloodshed here.
The policies are basically aimed at similar outcomes, with different ideas on how to get there.

I don't accept the premise that any of the parties are 'in it' for their own personal gain. I think on balance we are blessed with many many politicians on all sides of the house who have a genuine desire to make society better. You may disagree on the things they propose, and the outcome, but I don't think we have selfish, greedy politicians any more than that is reflected in society,and possibly a little less.
1
 Mark Bannan 12 Jun 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Only if you voted Tory.

> I think you're better than that though, so vote away

Cheers! I can reassure you that I have never voted Tory in my life and I can't think what unusual circumstances could change my mind on this one.

M

 john arran 12 Jun 2017
In reply to bearman68:
> Well, even though the specific policies are different,the overall thrust of either of the main parties tends to be the strengthening of the economy, more money for public services, and ideas on social care. We are not talking revolution and bloodshed here.

> The policies are basically aimed at similar outcomes, with different ideas on how to get there.

> I don't accept the premise that any of the parties are 'in it' for their own personal gain. I think on balance we are blessed with many many politicians on all sides of the house who have a genuine desire to make society better. You may disagree on the things they propose, and the outcome, but I don't think we have selfish, greedy politicians any more than that is reflected in society,and possibly a little less.

There may well not be any rampant corruption for personal gain, such as you might find in some other countries, but that doesn't mean the parties' policies are anywhere near the same, despite hollow words to try to appease voters of all persuasions. The gaping chasm of a difference is in which sector of society is expected to do well out of their different policies. On the one hand we have well-to-do people expecting to prosper further, now even without any pretence at a 'trickle-down' effect but with a more vague idea that attracting wealth and business will keep other people in jobs. On the other hand we have less wealthy and less fortunate people hoping to be treated slightly less badly by state and employers, and hoping the employers will still be around. There's really very little in the way of common ground, except in the rhetoric the politicians employ.

edit: spelling
Post edited at 21:05
 bouldery bits 12 Jun 2017
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I read the Lib dem one.
And I was satisfied with that so voted for it.

If we're honest we all know that 'manifesto' is Latin for 'undeliverable lies'.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...