Ot- May calls for election in June.

[swaledale]

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?

I think you will find that they are talking about the £200 "bonus" cameroon introduced for not living over the brush! Sp that will be more than thos ein receipt of the old MC allowance!

Also not leaving the EU could well save money as the economy will not suffer and we would have more tax income!

Your corporation tax assertion is one side of the story, the other is that where applied to companies who escape the burden at the moment equals higher revenues, plus lower corporation tax doesn't equal higher wages for workers in most economies, just more profits, perhaps take a look at Sweden before pouring scorn on a more equal wealth distribution - also its funny how we can always fund a war, but not a decent education for all?

[swaledale]

The beast clearly states that they shouldn't be able to contest the election, that's sacked or suspended for a minimum of 5 years, you agreed. RR is more capable than me and has highlighted your words, to help you.

You obviously weren't a teacher of English. Even RR has called you out. And if you read my explanation of, IF there was any wrong doing, which we now know to be untrue, then I felt that it should be Tory hq that gets punished.

The MPs in question were told correctly that the battlebus was part of the national campaign. Even if it was incorrect, it would have been highly believable, so who would have argued with their bosses.

It's incredible that police forces from all over the country are trying to prove it wasn't country wide.

I think you need to go back to sticking pins into your Maggie Thatcher doll, anag.

Eh no we dont know that there was no wrong doing, thats the conservatives take on the decision not to press charges, the prosecution take is that it would not be in the public interest, which is different!

[swaledale]

IMO it was a real 'move along, nothing to see here' issue, in the overall scheme of things.

No it wasn't it was a fiddle of election costs, but not able to pin it on anybody, there are many criminals walking around who have done worse things that have not been prosecuted because the evidence that they did such and such a deed isn't strong enough!

[Andy_Faber]

Eh no we dont know that there was no wrong doing, thats the conservatives take on the decision not to press charges, the prosecution take is that it would not be in the public interest, which is different!

You're inventing your own false news again. I quote from a Nick Vamos (head of special crime at the CPS) BBC interview

'The CPS could find no evidence that spending rules had been deliberately broken by Tory agents or candidates when filling in their returns.

"Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest,"

Although in a way you are right because its not in the public interest to prosecute people who are innocent in law...

[Andy_Faber]

In other news:

SQUADS of arse-kickers are to be deployed to ensure the under-25s bother to vote in the general election.

The force of large-booted volunteers will be especially active in universities, organising raids at the crack of noon to rouse apathetic students from their sleep.

Arse-kicker Norman Steele, 47, said: “Just for once we’d like an election to reflect the idealistic, socially progressive views of large sections of the population if only they could be arsed.

“No, there isn’t an app for it. No, you can’t tap your vote on a screen while keeping half an eye on The Jeremy Kyle show.

“You have to walk 800 yards to a school and operate a small pencil, the way your bigoted grandparents do.”

Meanwhile, any young person who uses the phrase, ‘whoever you vote for, the government always gets in’, will get a double arse-kicking.

Edit: No I didn't post a link, every time I try to post a link on Footy Mad, this bloody infuriating website crashes my computer. the news item was sourced from The Daily Mash which I endorse as the only news outlet to truly get down to grips with today's issues

[swaledale]

You're inventing your own false news again. I quote from a Nick Vamos (head of special crime at the CPS) BBC interview

'The CPS could find no evidence that spending rules had been deliberately broken by Tory agents or candidates when filling in their returns.

"Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest,"

Although in a way you are right because its not in the public interest to prosecute people who are innocent in law...

As I said, there is insufficient evidence to pin it on a person, because those who made the expenditure were told by Tory HQ it was national spending when according to election rules it was actually local spending.

So was it a cock up or was it a deliberate fiddle using a smokescreen to pump money into marginal seats?

[Ram59]

Like I said earlier, how is the battlebus different to when all the big guns turn out to marginal seats with all the entourage?

Supposedly, the cost of the battlebus is 2k, surely the cost of the leaders and their entourage equal that, at least.

[roger_ramjet]

Im sure the good Mr Corbyn would not dream of travelling first class on the train - probably sit on the floor in cattle class. Throw in a pasty from Greggs and a tea and he will only cost under 20 quid a day

[swaledale]

Like I said earlier, how is the battlebus different to when all the big guns turn out to marginal seats with all the entourage?

Supposedly, the cost of the battlebus is 2k, surely the cost of the leaders and their entourage equal that, at least.

It wasn't the cost of the battlebus, it was the cost of bussing in loads of activists into marginal constituencies which wasn't declared as local spending but on the national account, whereas it was clearly a targetted approach to paying for more canvassing for a specific candidate, thats a clear breach of the electoral rules as it it allows a party with the most money to use it to influence the election.

But hey if people are happy to accept that a leader who does a complete about turn after stating categorically that an election was not in the interests of the country less than a year ago to say the opposite, or for a party to state that capping fuel bills is "marxist politics" then introduce virtually the same policy 2 years later are, a) and example of "strong and stable leadership" or one that can be trusted to run the country, then I guess a bit of dodgy election spending isn't going to worry you!

[roger_ramjet]

Its good to know that you have a greater knowledge of the subject than the CPS Swale!