Looks like the Libdems know how to appeal to the electorate. they have announced increased funding for schools by:

A) Not leaving the EU; and
Scrapping the married couples tax allowance

The former is unlikely to appeal to that many non Libdem voters, but getting funding by not doing something that hasn't yet been done isn't going to raise much new money is it;

The latter is a real vote winner - basically increase the tax burden on the over 82 year olds. So lets think - how many couple are still alive where at least one is over 82? Of them how many are actually earning enough to benefit from an increased personal allowance (ie over about 12,000)? Furthermore how much money will this raise since the most anyone can save from this allowance is £ 845 pa?

So under the new Libdem rule, they will be taking money away from a lot of genuinely needy people in the twilight of their days, who are living on a fixed income. How much therefore will this increase the spend on state social care for the very people that have had their income cut.

Sure, there will be a handful of wealthy 82+ year olds who are still married and living together and have a high income who he can snaffle £ 850 off. Maybe £ 10 million raised? Peanuts and surely a vote loser in view of taking away from those most in need.

Corbyn on the other hand is promising £ 6 billion (albeit la-la land) from increasing corporation tax. That's a good move - a 2016 IEA study found that 57.6% of the corporate tax burden in the UK is ultimately borne by the workers (higher corporation tax = lower capital investment = reduced productivity = lower wages). The more open the economy and thus the more mobile the capital, then the greater the burden of corporation tax falls on the workers. So staying in the EU makes this proportion even higher given the greater mobility of capital. In Germany, for instance, a 1% increase in corporation tax has been shown to result in a 0.3 to 0.5% reduction in wages.

Do politicians ever think before they open their mouths?