UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: jfdm on April 18, 2017, 10:46:54 am
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live)
So what's going on?
Brexit off the table, early election, Trump visit, queen abdicating.
Nhs privatisation, May found 200billion down back of sofa.
Bojo found poisoned in mysterious circumstances.
That's on my bingo card as I look at.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live)
So what's going on?
Brexit off the table, early election, Trump visit, queen abdicating.
Nhs privatisation, May found 200billion down back of sofa.
Bojo found poisoned in mysterious circumstances.
That's on my bingo card as I look at.
Based on that URL it's hard to say, like they just threw a few zeitgeisty words at a wall and hope some stick.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live)
So what's going on?
Brexit off the table, early election, Trump visit, queen abdicating.
Nhs privatisation, May found 200billion down back of sofa.
Bojo found poisoned in mysterious circumstances.
That's on my bingo card as I look at.
Based on that URL it's hard to say, like they just threw a few zeitgeisty words at a wall and hope some stick.
Yes URL not clear, think it's called breaking news, watch this space :'(
-
Looking like the haunted art gallery owner is calling general election in June.
-
Shit on a stick, early elections.
What if Lab/Libs don't want to play ball?
If they do come out to play then this will be the end of Cobyn.
Some good might come out of this.
No news from Cobyn, he's in the allotment bunker, probably shitting himself. Think he's just got the fax machine working again, statement just through, supports election.
Don't know who to vote for, pretty limited options.
-
If you think you have a crisis of who to vote for down there, think how it feels up here!
-
Whats even worse than an Omnishambles (apart from two...)..
-
Megaomnishambles
-
What if Lab/Libs don't want to play ball?
Tough shit, the Tories have a majority and it's definitely in their interest to vote for it. Will anyone rebel? Can't see why they would.
The only good thing that will come of this is that when Labour get wiped out it will hopefully precipitate Corbyn's demise. I reckon he'll try and hang on though before he is eventually pushed.
-
Corbyshambles....
The big winners from this will be the Tories, Lib Dems will do well out of it too (up to 30-50 seats?) - Labour will lose very heavily. I don't think they have enough time to re-organise and elect a new leader unless Corbyn quits.
From Mays point of view its a no brainer....
From my point of view it means avoiding the news even more for the next 2 months...
-
What if Lab/Libs don't want to play ball?
Tough shit, the Tories have a majority and it's definitely in their interest to vote for it. Will anyone rebel? Can't see why they would.
The only good thing that will come of this is that when Labour get wiped out it will hopefully precipitate Corbyn's demise. I reckon he'll try and hang on though before he is eventually pushed.
2/3rds majority needed, it is a risk, all those marginals.
So not tough shit really.
I'd call this Brexit part deux.
-
2/3rds majority needed
Ah, right you are. Didn't know that bit.
-
2/3rds majority needed
Ah, right you are. Didn't know that bit.
From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/what-is-the-fixed-term-parliaments-act
Is the decision to call a general election up to Theresa May?
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act makes calling a general election the decision of the House of Commons, not the prime minister. But May has challenged the House of Commons to support a motion for an early election in a vote on Wednesday.
What is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act?
The coalition agreement between David Cameron and Nick Clegg led to the introduction of a five-year, fixed-term parliament. Elections would be held on the first Thursday in May in 2015, 2020, 2025 and so on. But it also provided for a dissolution of parliament, which would trigger a general election if two-thirds of parliament voted in favour.
Are there any other ways of achieving a general election?
May could call a vote of no confidence in her own government,
which would only have to be won by a simple majority of 51%.
Would May achieve either of these thresholds?
The prime minister will almost certainly achieve this by asking her own MPs to vote for an early election. Opposition MPs would find it almost impossible to vote against the chance of getting rid of the government, despite the vulnerability of many of their own seats.
-
Corbyn is up for it (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live):
"Corbyn confirms Labour will vote for early election
Jeremy Corbyn has put out this statement about Theresa May’s announcement.
I welcome the prime minister’s decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first.
Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government that has failed to rebuild the economy, delivered falling living standards and damaging cuts to our schools and NHS.
In the last couple of weeks, Labour has set out policies that offer a clear and credible choice for the country. We look forward to showing how Labour will stand up for the people of Britain."
Enough votes for an early election if Labour plays ball.
-
Is he really that deluded to think he has a chance?
-
And to think this whole terrible domino effect started largely because a guy got caught on camera looking a bit weird while eating a bacon sandwich.
-
Corbyn is up for it (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live)):
We look forward to showing how Labour will stand up for the people of Britain.
Jezza, we've been looking forward to that for the last 18 months mate.
-
Corbyn is up for it
Is he really that deluded to think he has a chance?
Corbyn will be anything but up for it, but it is untenable for the leader of the opposition to turn down the offer of a General Election. To do so would be to admit his own weakness.
-
I challenge you to a duel...
-
Corbyn is up for it (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live)):
We look forward to showing how Labour will stand up for the people of Britain.
Jezza, we've been looking forward to that for the last 18 months mate.
I'm wondering if TeamCorbyn (Fuck yeah! Well maybe, ok probably, I guess)(tm) will be able to eclipse the EdStone moment....
Christ, I still owe sloper a few pints from a wager on the last GE...
-
The real fight starts now.
-
The real fight starts now.
Fuck yeah. He's ready [emoji197]
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/pri_36404999.jpg?w=748&h=981&crop=1)
-
The real fight starts now.
Fuck yeah. He's ready [emoji197]
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/pri_36404999.jpg?w=748&h=981&crop=1)
Is Cobyn in battle dress ready to "fight" over train seats/toilets or are you talking about the general election. Last time I went to lav on train, it didn't require safety specs or hard hat. He definitely has a few "issues" to deal with I think.
-
The real fight starts now.
Fuck yeah. He's ready [emoji197]
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/pri_36404999.jpg?w=748&h=981&crop=1)
Is Cobyn in battle dress ready to "fight" over train seats/toilets or are you talking about the general election. Last time I went to lav on train, it didn't require safety specs or hard hat. He definitely has a few "issues" to deal with I think.
http://newsthump.com/2017/04/18/theresa-may-announces-snap-annihilation-of-the-labour-party/
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170418/1fb31f7883043cbcb93d46521298b145.jpg)
I do love it when politicians don't quite think things through...
-
Looking at maybe voting Libdems, due to antibrexit stance.
Voting from 2015, my constituency safe labour seat with 65% of share, Cons about 21%, Libs 4% ukip 4%. So don't think that tactical voting would make any difference here. Lab majority may well fall but voting libdems wouldn't change a thing.
Will have to see how Libs/lab/greens talk the talk, before I cast my vote.
A real shame that that lab committed to Brexit and also this gen election so readily.
Would have been better to have dug their heels in and opt for no confidence vote in the gov. Think this would have been the best line to take in my opinion once again lab jumping to cons tune.
-
Looking at maybe voting Libdems, due to antibrexit stance.
Voting from 2015, my constituency safe labour seat with 65% of share, Cons about 21%, Libs 4% ukip 4%. So don't think that tactical voting would make any difference here. Lab majority may well fall but voting libdems wouldn't change a thing.
Will have to see how Libs/lab/greens talk the talk, before I cast my vote.
A real shame that that lab committed to Brexit and also this gen election so readily.
Would have been better to have dug their heels in and opt for no confidence vote in the gov. Think this would have been the best line to take in my opinion once again lab jumping to cons tune.
[emoji106]
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170418/ce6ae531c39970d4f12a2f90d10f3cfd.jpg)
-
https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-cps-considering-charges-against-over-30-people-including-tory-mps-over-expenses
Shat herself and needs to consolidate?
Edit: late to the party
-
http://e.infogr.am/stop_the_tories-0?src=embed
I'm no left winger and voting labour sticks in my craw; but...
Needs must when the Devil drives.
This nation is more than wealthy enough to look after its' most needy and its' sick. The top 1% do not need another tax cut. Education, at any level; is our most important social investment and should never be the domain of the wealthy (ie. it should be free).
We don't need continued fossil fuel development, we need to move to renewables.
Schools are not political footballs.
Brexit is not the main reason to vote (though it might be better without the selfishness of the Tories (or better, not happen)).
We don't need to fawn to the US.
We don't need to be scared of our own shadows and a Hijab isn't dangerous.
Nor are people with funny accents a threat to our economy.
And Murdoch already has enough power.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I might post this question here as well:
For free and fair elections I tend to use the uninformed prior: i.e. that the outcome is 50/50, but that this can be updated closer to the election as people prepare themselves for voting and polling improves. Can someone explain why everyone is so sure that this election is very lopsided in favour of the tories? The voters have had 0 days to make up their mind so far.
-
First and foremost, I'm assuming the fact that the haunted gallery owner has an opinion poll lead unheard of in recent history is the main driver, though obviously polls have been incorrect in the recent past.
Couple that with:
- A political lean to the right from the general proletariat confirmed by Brexit
- The laughable state of Labour generally
- Fragmentation of any potential non-Tory votes across Lab, Lib Dem etc depending on their approach
- The fact the SNP will all but wipe Labour out in Scotland
- Putin probably having no interest in fixing this one so Jezza gets in
Also, wasn't one of Cameron's last acts to change the constituency boundaries to favour his lot as well?
The bookies have a Tory win at something like 1/16, with a majority at 1/7. They are rarely wrong.
-
In fact, the total seats under/over for the Tories is currently at 375.5 which gives you some idea of where the market thinks this is going.
-
Also, wasn't one of Cameron's last acts to change the constituency boundaries to favour his lot as well?
The bookies have a Tory win at something like 1/16, with a majority at 1/7. They are rarely wrong.
This will be before the boundary changes (one of the few tory reasons against apparently..)
Bookies got Brexit and Trump wrong... ;) But this time around I see no other outcome - unless someone does a Nick Clegg (2010)
-
The bookies have a Tory win at something like 1/16, with a majority at 1/7. They are rarely wrong.
Bookies got Brexit and Trump wrong... ;) But this time around I see no other outcome - unless someone does a Nick Clegg (2010)
See my comment above re: Putin!
-
[li]The fact the SNP will all but wipe Labour out in Scotland[/li][/list]
That was done already in the last election? IIRC Labour hold one seat and Tories hold one here, both of which I think will go to SNP this time.
-
I'm no left winger and voting labour sticks in my craw; but...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is something that could possibly sway me to put a big peg on my nose as I go into the voting booth.
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/this-is-how-you-should-vote-to-stop-the-tories-1-4980541 (http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/this-is-how-you-should-vote-to-stop-the-tories-1-4980541)
Brexit will play a part in my thinking but as you mentioned the wider issues are as important like education, health, economy etc.
I just hope that this election sham will be seen for what it is and blows up Mayhems hands.
-
It would make my year.
-
Too much to claw back
-
Actually I shouldn't be too harsh on them, after all the media/papers pretty much told everyone to hate Clegg.
This may be the crux of this election. Now he's gone (ish - as leader at least) one or two papers for the masses decide they are hacked off enough with Tories and get behind LDs and champion them, and it might just swing. Maybe.
-
So libdems seat share might increase, but will still be massive Tory majority.
-
So libdems seat share might increase, but will still be massive Tory majority.
Probably...
-
Tom Tom, why would John Leech be a shoe in? He was a good MP but so has Jeff Smith been. Jeff Smith has a 14k (30 odd %) majority, far bigger than John Leech ever had and as a whip he defied JC and voted in line with his conscience and constituency on Article 50 so he's got the remain vote.
-
I like the sound of an anti-Tory coalition. A bit of the Center to temper the Left, with a tinge of Green.
Well, I can dream; can't I?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Here's my guess. The Tories will increase the number of MPs; Lib Dems will too, a bit; Labour will decline, but not utterly, not enough to bring the party decisively together so they'll limp on.
-
I've spoken to a Labour insider (political advisor to an MP) who is predicting Labour will lose over 100 seats and Corbyn won't resign. Pretty bold as these things go!
She had also predicted May would call a snap election to be held in May, so she wasn't far off.
-
And to think this whole terrible domino effect started largely because a guy got caught on camera looking a bit weird while eating a bacon sandwich.
This 'news' story must be one of the worst episodes in British journalism, it really was the most unpleasant vein of anti Semitism running through certain parts of the right wing press.
-
To TT etc re ignoring the news: NO! Apathy is why Brexit came about. Don't do it again!
The real tragedy in the current news is that gobsmacking despotism is congratulated by the US president with a friendly phone call: Trump must see Erdogan locking up journalists and think ooo yeah there's an idea.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-recep-tayyip-erdogan-congratulate-turkey-referendum-president-powers-increase-reaction-a7688171.html
-
My sitting MP is shadow Brexit minister.
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/paul-blomfield/4058
Good job he's doing there. He also approved Trump's visit. Unfortunately, barring a cataclysmic swing in voting habits - a majority of nearly 40% - he will win, but at the moment my votes definitely going green.
-
Haven't the recent polls being wrong for the last election and Brexit, all shown that polls give a slightly biased left leaning result, meaning that the conservatives could be on an even bigger majority than even the polls are showing.
-
my votes definitely going green.
Just out of interest, why?
-
my votes definitely going green.
Just out of interest, why?
In Sheffield central, Bloomfield will basically win anyway, but...They have some realistic, socially responsible policies which very broadly agree with my world view. Vocal on preserving Sheffield trees. Anti Trump. The LD candidate has an even smaller chance of winning. I really don't want to vote for a man I disagree with fundamentally, who works for Corbyn, who is as good an opposition as a fucking chocolate tea pot.
If i still lived in S10, I'd definitely vote LD.
-
One thing (and a potential saving grace for the non-Tory) I'm interested to see is turnout.
I can only vouch for the random voxpops from recent TV news but a lot of folk seemed to be in a "I'm sick of the whole thing, I'm not voting" frame of mind.
Sadly I think this may be most prevalent among "traditional Labour areas". Presumably many don't want to back JC, can't bring themselves to vote Tory, UKIP seems like a spent force post-Brexit maybe?
As we can be sure the pro-Brexit Tory vote will be out in force, I think we could be looking at a historic blue majority.
-
Fair points 3T.. Though don't underestimate the pissed off remainers (like me) who want to show parliament that I still want to be part of Europe (by default neither Labour or Tory will therefore get my vote).
I quite admire JC coming out today and saying he wants a different sort of politics - different sort of campaign etc. I empathise with that sentiment.
I think he'd be a fucking shite PM though...
It seems like many labour MP's agree with that sentiment.. Its now the interviewers favourite 'make the labour MP squirm' question "do you think your leader would make a good prime minister?". I've not heard one say 'yes' outright... they all weasel around it.
-
Talk to Labour Party activists out knocking on doors in traditional Labour areas and the most common opinion is 'I want to vote labour, but I won't vote for Corbyn sorry'.
I'll be voting libdem in Winchester which is purely tactical, but it's 55% Tory so that's a bit of a joke.
-
I quite admire JC coming out today and saying he wants a different sort of politics - different sort of campaign etc. I empathise with that sentiment.
I just can't help but think he most be totally deluded.
-
+1. Nice though it is, it seems to have barely a passing acknowledgement of reality.
-
I quite admire JC coming out today and saying he wants a different sort of politics - different sort of campaign etc. I empathise with that sentiment.
I just can't help but think he most be totally deluded.
Indeed - a Macron, Treuduea (sp?) or possibly a Clegg of 2010 vintage might pull it off.. But JC.. Its shallow, but its a shallow world we inhabit. Now what channel is TOWIE on?
-
I quite admire JC coming out today and saying he wants a different sort of politics - different sort of campaign etc. I empathise with that sentiment.
The trouble is that this sort of admiration created Momentum, encouraged the rise of Corbyn's delusional narcissistic cronies, and created a situation in which a party with a great history of achievement is now a laughing stock, enfeebled by its leadership and destined for many years of irrelevance and toxic internal wrangling. A situation where you have the best and hardest-working constituency MPs, Jess Phillips for example, resorting to crowdfunding their election campaign whilst still being subjected to a torrent of abuse from fans of the leadership, which the latter have totally failed to deal with. The terrifying thing is not Labour being decimated, but Corbyn somehow managing to cling on to the ship he's been dismantling so he can make sure the job is finished...
-
I really don't know who to vote for. The reality of it is that I live in a reasonably safe Conservative seat. Because the votes were totted up by local authority as opposed to constituency I don't know how people in Shipley voted in the referendum, but I expect it will have been a comfortable Leave victory.
Given that my MP, Philip Davies, is about at Brexit as they come, and he won the last election with a comfortable 50% of the vote, I don't expect him to be going anywhere.
But do I vote Labour on the smallest off chance that they beat him? But how can I vote Labour if their manifesto states that they will support Brexit under any circumstances.
Do I vote Lib Dem as a protest to indicate my support for remaining in the EU?
Do I vote Green, because, you know, they're Green?
If Labour ran their campaign on a pledge that they would wait and see what the Brexit deal is and then hold a vote on whether to accept it or not, I think I could vote for them with a clear conscience. I don't think they'll do this as it'll play out badly in their Brexit supporting safe seats.
-
The only hope this election is tactically voting. UKIP are third in your constituency behind Labour in second. I would vote Labour.
-
And the reality of the situation is that brexit is happening and a big Tory majority is happening. The only reason to vote is to try keep some vague hope that some meaningful opposition can be rebuilt over next 10 years.
-
And the reality of the situation is that brexit is happening and a big Tory majority is happening. The only reason to vote is to try keep some vague hope that some meaningful opposition can be rebuilt over next 10 years.
But if a vote for Labour is to be perceived as an endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn's incarnation of the party, that's something I'd rather not do.
-
I started a long post about the particularities of my constituency etc etc. ... but the reality is that I am at a complete loss as to what to do that will feel in any way meaningful.
-
And the reality of the situation is that brexit is happening and a big Tory majority is happening. The only reason to vote is to try keep some vague hope that some meaningful opposition can be rebuilt over next 10 years.
There won't be anything left.
No NHS.
No Welfare state.
No social justice.
No Police force.
No University for the less than wealthy.
No state education worth the name.
I don't think this country has seen such an extreme rightwing government in a century. All that post war progress is gone.
The entire population that sits left of the Tory/EDL/BF/UKIP party of government, is so fractured and lost; there is no hope now or in the near future of any change.
Despite almost half the country being decent human beings, the fucktards of the right are always relatively united behind their evil overlords.
Free thinkers are just that and will always be lost because of it.
-
But if a vote for Labour is to be perceived as an endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn's incarnation of the party, that's something I'd rather not do.
Yep appreciate that. Widely reflected sentiment.
-
I started a long post about the particularities of my constituency etc etc. ... but the reality is that I am at a complete loss as to what to do that will feel in any way meaningful.
At least you're not here at the moment to witness the 24 hour news wank fest... though I appreciate its not all gravy in the USofA. Frying pan, fire etc..
-
Nice article on how tactical voting may (or may not) be any use...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/20/tactical-voting-to-beat-the-tories-does-the-maths-equal-a-coalition
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e443ccfd9ce2e2a2d9ca18e39671df30897fe50e/0_0_1019_721/master/1019.png?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=a01f262d3a72d1102a9cddc6cfd44906)
-
I started a long post about the particularities of my constituency etc etc. ... but the reality is that I am at a complete loss as to what to do that will feel in any way meaningful.
At least you're not here at the moment to witness the 24 hour news wank fest... though I appreciate its not all gravy in the USofA. Frying pan, fire etc..
I was about to say that. Life in Trumpton seems interesting enough as it is.
-
I quite admire JC coming out today and saying he wants a different sort of politics - different sort of campaign etc. I empathise with that
He said exactly that in his acceptance speech when he became party leader. He's given us a different sort of politics all right, the sort where there's a vacuum of meaningful leadership and opposition.
I think a lot of people understood that JC would go on to stand up to Tory policy, not just meekly wave it through.
-
Oh gosh! This entire thread is very disheartening. For the 1st time in my lifetime there is a party leader that is not owned by corporate entities, that has policies that I broadly agree with, gives a f**k about the least fortunate, that is clearly not led by ego or self interest, wants to save the NHS from profiteers (and isn't lying), believes in a living wage, wants a more equal society, wants to end the murderous abusive cuts to welfare.. and you folk are bleating (pun intended) on about lack of leadership, lack of opposition... etc. Etc. This isn't a pissing game it, real life and real life at the moment for those who need their society to look after them is really not f**king good! Finally we have someone proposing policies that would improve life for the masses and you don't like it?! I don't get that... Am I a lone voice? are folk scared of the wrath of UKBs more vocal political and seemingly mainstream commentators? Or is it genuinely the consensus that you would prefer to be shafted further rather than support the policies above?
-
This is what bites me about the whole Corbyn thing - we have years where folk moan that all the parties and leaders are all the same, career politicians who just roll out soundbites who don't really have any principles, don't offer anything different and don't really care about real people. Then one comes along who's got some principles, not just playing the soundbite game, and then we don't like that either.
-
I was pleased when he became leader; at last it seemed the Labour Party was going to have a think about what it was actually for.
He is unfortunately ineffectual and rejected by the overwhelming majority of the electorate. Some policies are good, but they have been a long time in articulating and one 10 day flurry alone won't overcome that.
He's got plenty of ego; it may be sublimated into a 'for the good of the cause' rationale but the governement is at sixes and sevens, he can't land a punch ( yes, that's politics, not a discussion group) and the ship is sinking. He should recognise that the party is a broad church not a faction and under his stewardship is insufficiently supported as to be able to help anyone as it is unelectable.
When you're not up to it, quit. Defeat will help no one.
-
I agree with BtB. I don't really understand what's going on tbh.
My facebook feed seems massively more pro Corbyn, not sure what if anything to read in to that.
I'd probably put myself as a sort of middle class chump (with a 'working class' job whatever that means??!) with what would probably be described as an historical tory leaning. However I would (were i eligible to vote) be voting for Corbyn. But I'm not, hey-ho. I remain bamboozled by the whole situation.
-
To answer your point Dave, I want someone leading a party into power, not years of regret.
Politics is the art of the possible they say. That means compromising with the electorate. JC isn't doing that.
-
No one is asking to be shafted Brutus, they are bemoaning the lack of competence in the LP which will usher in misery writ large.
-
So where is JC going to get the 40% of the vote he needs to have a chance of winning btb? Who's going to vote for him?
People don't just vote for policies - they are voting for a leader - and can you genuinely say he's a good leader?
-
So the consistent repetition of these messages by the mainstream media seeps into the consciousness of the sheeple of our country. He's incompetent as a leader and ineffective opposition. The 'news' tells us it is true and we soak it up, despite the fact that it maybe what we are looking for. BBC is full of Tory ringers so not a reliable source for unbiased information, privately owned media is for the most part owned by those who benefit from Tory/ Blairite policy. Blairite/Progress linked MPs and members of the Labour Party are linked corporately to their paymasters who benefit from Tory/Blairite policy. The guy is being undermined from within in collusion with mainstream media and undermined directly by the mainstream media. I don't believe a word of it, so is the logic I don't think he'll get enough votes therefore I won't vote for him? Where's he going to get the votes from? From decent people who can see through all the turd and would like a better less selfish society? Nice to see there a few lurkers that might think differently🙂
-
Ha ha - media conspiracy theory :D
Seriously - do you think he's a good leader who could lead this country? Effectively?
-
So the consistent repetition of these messages by the mainstream media seeps into the consciousness of the sheeple of our country. He's incompetent as a leader and ineffective opposition. The 'news' tells us it is true and we soak it up, despite the fact that it maybe what we are looking for. BBC is full of Tory ringers so not a reliable source for unbiased information, privately owned media is for the most part owned by those who benefit from Tory/ Blairite policy. Blairite/Progress linked MPs and members of the Labour Party are linked corporately to their paymasters who benefit from Tory/Blairite policy. The guy is being undermined from within in collusion with mainstream media and undermined directly by the mainstream media. I don't believe a word of it, so is the logic I don't think he'll get enough votes therefore I won't vote for him? Where's he going to get the votes from? From decent people who can see through all the turd and would like a better less selfish society? Nice to see there a few lurkers that might think differently🙂
Does any of this help? Nothing has changed in my views of him since last summer. Currently I find myself as a Labour party member who might not even vote Labour :(
Hopefully the link will work as I don't want to retype it all.
http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,11868.msg529440.html#msg529440
-
For the 1st time in my lifetime there is a party leader that is not owned by corporate entities, that has policies that I broadly agree with, gives a f**k about the least fortunate, that is clearly not led by ego or self interest, wants to save the NHS from profiteers (and isn't lying), believes in a living wage, wants a more equal society, wants to end the murderous abusive cuts to welfare.. and you folk are bleating (pun intended) on about lack of leadership, lack of opposition... etc. Etc.
That's all fine, I support it. Now, step outside your own social circle for a moment and gaze at the rest of the electorate. No, not the 0.001% of the electorate who fervently support JC enough to attend his rallies, the other lot - the centrist, slightly right leaning majority. They aren't going to vote for a party which JC is leading. The only way to win elections is to hold the centre ground, from where you can make slow branchings to the left. The revolution will not be televised because it isn't going to happen.
Or is it genuinely the consensus that you would prefer to be shafted further rather than support the policies above?
My view is that I'd rather not be shafted by the Conservatives. That's why I want a strong Labour party in opposition and in readiness to govern. I accept that, in a society dominated by Conservative voters, my ideals are unlikely to be fully realised, but I would like to get as close to them as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn's brand of socialism has a place in UK politics in the Green Party. If Labour had the potential to govern and also had the Greens snapping at their heels it would force them to adopt some more socialist policies. Think this doesn't work? We're currently leaving the European Union because the Conservatives got a bit nervy about UKIP, a party which I don't think has ever won a seat at a general election.
The problem with the left is that it prefers to get shafted while adopting a state of blissful righteousness over making some compromises with the electorate at large.
so is the logic I don't think he'll get enough votes therefore I won't vote for him?
No the logic is that I don't want to endorse futile populism.
By the way, Brutus, if you infer that I am a sheeple, brainwashed, a Blairite (actually you can infer that all you like, I am), a red Tory, a neo-con fascist, a scab or a chicken coup plotter, or if you persist in using conspiracy theories as arguments in a sensible political debate then I will be forced to issue you with one punter point.
-
Why Ha ha?! You've pulled the tin foil hat/ conspiracy theory guff on me before. You can't dismiss the connections that are made via corporations, parliament, media by calling it conspiracy theory anymore, that is weak. Where's Georgie boy just got a job? Where did Owen Smith work before becoming an MP? It's a revolving door stitch up, that is fairly obvious to a reasonably intelligent onlooker, who has an inquiring mind and the ability to question the 'truths' that peddled to us continuously. WH you don't really need me to give examples do you? It ain't conspiracy theory if it's provable is it? So punter away but it will be a miscarriage of justice without a fair trial.
Do you think Theresa May is a good leader that is leading this country effectively?
(Answer mine and I'll answer yours)
-
Relevant point to the Corbyn discussion by the way is that the Unite leadership vote result is due out at the beginning of next week and is apparently very close.
-
eg. Rona Fairhead Chair of the BBC's governing trust, HSBC board member and former member of the Conservative Cabinet office.
-
Have just spent Easter in the Tory echo chamber of the Welsh riviera and the worrying vibe is that they all think May is absolutely wonderful a much needed 'strong leader', even my Dad who is considering not voting tory for the first time in his life over brexit.
I think what has got potential to get interesting in this election is the turnout. People have had enough of politics. I suspect the working class demographic who voted for brexit just aren't going to bother - they won't be comfortable with Corbyn, UKIP are moribund and actually voting tory will be too big a step. I suspect too that the total physical number of tory votes may drop even as they gain seats.
Meanwhile you've got the middle class remain demographic who are mostly absolutely livid about the impending hard brexit and will be voting tactically/ LibDem en masse. Add to that the youth who normally wouldn't take an interest but have been politicised over the last year and something could happen.
-
Why Ha ha?! You've pulled the tin foil hat/ conspiracy theory guff on me before. You can't dismiss the connections that are made via corporations, parliament, media by calling it conspiracy theory anymore, that is weak. Where's Georgie boy just got a job? Where did Owen Smith work before becoming an MP? It's a revolving door stitch up
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Do you think Theresa May is a good leader that is leading this country effectively?
(Answer mine and I'll answer yours)
Now there's an interesting question.
Clause 1: "a good leader". I would say yes. She's made exactly the right call for the interests of her own party in calling a general election. Consider this hypothesis for a moment. In the recent history of western civilisation, politics has been characterised by the conflict between capitalists and socialists (or something approximating those things). Rich vs Poor. Consider now that this has been turned on it's side slightly and that when it comes to foreign policy and, more specifically, foreign trade policy, the conflict is now between Open and Closed. Theresa has been declared last woman standing in a leadership contest and is now left with the steaming turd of Brexit to deal with. She can't ignore it and hope that it goes away, she has to get her hands dirty. Consider that Theresa May never wanted Brexit. Consider that the pound rose in value today and Deutsche Bank said this:
Today's general election announcement changes the outlook. We do not see the election as a mandate for hard Brexit. Instead, assuming current polling proves correct, it should result in a larger Conservative majority. This will have three material implications, in our opinion."
The three material changes cited by Deutsche Bank are as follows:
"The deadline to deliver a 'clean' Brexit without a lengthy transitional arrangement by 2019 far less pressing given that no general election will be due the year after."
Deutsche Bank argues that MPs pushing for a hard Brexit will have their influence diluted, thanks to a larger Conservative party majority.
Finally, Saravelos suggests that a fresh election strengthens "the PM's overall negotiating stance who in recent weeks has clearly fallen in line with the European negotiating approach."
So basically, by securing a greater majority in the commons, she will avoid the worst excesses of a hard Brexit (leaving the single market) by allowing a softer Brexit to be negotiated. For remainers, this could be the silver lining here.
Clause 2: "leading this country effectively". I'm going to say "no" from my own personal standpoint. However thus far there has been very little movement on domestic policy since so much of the oxygen of debate has been consumed by conversations about Brexit. There's not really very much evidence to weigh this objectively, but I certainly won't be voting Conservative!
Now, I've answered yours, so perhaps you would be so good as to address my points from last year which I don't believe you responded to.
One thing to consider (and I'm sure I've said this further up) is that the relationship between the media and people's opinions is not uni-directional. It is far too simplistic to say "The media hates Corbyn and they brainwash the people into hating him also", it's nowhere near as linear as that.
People generally read newspapers that reflect their own prejudice. Case in point, does anybody here read The Mail or The Sun? No. Why? Because they're full of vile right wing shit that we don't agree with. Newspaper editors know their readership and what they think, and they have a hard enough time flogging newspapers without trying to push stuff to the readers which they don't want to read. The content and tone of a paper will largely reflect the readership's opinion, but that doesn't mean that editors can't edge their readers towards one viewpoint or another on certain contentious issues. The relationship of influence between news content and readership opinion is very much circular.
Let's take this tenet and zoom out to look at the big picture. When you say "the media are biased against Corbyn", what you're actually saying is "the weight of popular opinion is against Corbyn and the media report on that". This is exacerbated in his case because he makes himself an easy target by not engaging with the media - i.e. he creates a vacuum which journalists need to fill - and unfortunately we live in a world where people enjoy the schadenfreude of laughing at the scruffy man with the beard.
I don't think it's a big conspiracy. I just think that outside of our little filter bubble of left-wing democratic socialists (or perhaps more accurately, revolutionary socialists, in the case of many Corbyn supporters) he's not very well liked. People do judge on looks. People do judge on personality. It is in our very nature. When you hold a minority view, as many of us do, it feels safe and cosy to tell yourself that there's a great conspiracy against you and your way of thinking. It reassures you that you're right and tells you that the majority of people are the ones who are wrong because they've been hoodwinked by an amorphous media bogeyman.
Corbyn's bloody great. He should be in the Green party (his Islington constituency would definitely re-elect him in a by-election should he defect), or hold some lesser position in the Labour party, influencing what they do.
With the obvious flaw of FPTP excepted, our parliamentary democracy is flipping brilliant, and Corbyn is breaking the model by trying to lead a party without compromise or consensus, and that is a bad thing (even the Guardian agrees with this).
-
Do you think Theresa May is a good leader that is leading this country effectively?
(Answer mine and I'll answer yours)
I asked first :p but as you're being shy ;)
Media conspiracy is a line used very successfully in the ascent of Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe and Donald Trump to name a few...
Didn't the canary (where those stories originate) get a bit slagging in the whole fake news debate?
Theresa May... I don't know if she's a good leader but she's keeping the Tories together better than JC is dealing with Labour (and really Tories are more split in many ways..). As a pm I suspect she will lead well (she made the correct choice for her and her party in calling a GE) but with bad consequences for the less wealthy - and the Brexit nightmare. Something her and JC have in common...
-
Ha ha - media conspiracy theory :D
Seriously - do you think he's a good leader who could lead this country? Effectively?
It's a simple reality that the capitalists who own the media will defend their class interests by using their influence to try to discredit anyone that threatens them. Definitely not a conspiracy theory.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/bart-cammaerts-brooks-decillia-joa-o-magalha-es-and-ce-sar-jimenez-marti-nez/when-our-watchdog-be
https://theconversation.com/media-bias-against-jeremy-corbyn-shows-how-politicised-reporting-has-become-71593
-
It's not that the country is "dominated" by Tory voters; it's that everyone even slightly left of centre is so hopelessly divided.
People talk about "holding the center ground", but really, the swing voters are the those who leap to the "bigotry du jour" and which ever wanker is shouting the loudest. Once it was "Worker rights!" and "Power to the people!", now it's "Immigrants!" and "Make Britain Great again!"
To be clear, how many on this thread are pondering between Tory or Labour?
Not many I'd imagine.
Most here are swinging between Lab/Lib/Green or a.n.other liberal to left party.
Until UKIP reared it's stinking head, the right wing fringe parties were so fringe as to be irrelevant. The Left and center are very much a victim of their own success. Half the population are willing to think, change, empathise and are not married to a single political party.
Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).
What we need, is a joining of those with a social conscience (which, I believe, is the uniting characteristic of everyone not on the right).
To everyone not a long time Lab supporter, Labour is horribly tainted by Blair and/or saddled with a "Socks and Sandals" image of ineffectual dreamers.
Oddly, I might have considered Brown...
Or that Bacon sandwich fella, what was his name?
-
Didn't the whole media conspiracy thing originate from the CIA as a tool to discredit anyone asking questions about Kennedy's assassination? (Point is, it's not an argument it's a method of 'brushing off'.)
A good leader that has bad consquences for the less wealthy? Hmmmmmm. That would be the definition of poor leadership for me.
Corbyn a good leader that could lead this Country effectively?
Of course what anyone might determine to be the qualities of a good leader maybe completely different. Should he be elected as PM we will find out won't we. I like the fact he is principled, I like the fact that he has been calling the media out recently (you won't see that footage much on the BBC), I like that fact that he has had the strength to stand strong against the all the sniping and back stabbing, I like his beard and jam making, I love that he is not owned by anyone, I love that he is willing to stand up for others. All qualities of what I would call a good leader. Maybe the question should be will Corbyn be allowed to be a good leader because I can't foresee the sniping stopping.
-
Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).
See my facebook post: I think (on a brief glance) if i still lived in NA I'd probably vote Tory. The sitting MP grills Hunt all the time about the NHS. Which is a lot more than Corbyn does.
-
Brutus - The media misconstruing what the Lab party has said. It's the actual MPs doing that. I am sure that you have listened to this, the full interview is an eye opener.
Exhibit A, Dawn Butler MP for Brent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304)
This is the problem, Labour has been off message for the last couple of years.
It's looked like a rabble from the outside, disagreements laid out in the open etc.
Jezzer doesn't seem to have a Malcom Tucker to sort out the loose cannons.
I'm not getting misty eyed over Blair, but the party view was then tightly controlled.
Alistar Campbell / Mandy ensured that there were enough Tuckers to go round everybody remained on message.
Jezzer needed to be in the first instance pragmatic, compromise to build up alliances and unify the party, which would develop some discipline within the party. Has he done that? See exhibit A, sadly day 2 of the election.
Just for some humour Butler should be getting some of the following treatment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUky4_A7Zw4 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUky4_A7Zw4)
Having listened to Jezzers speech today, his ideas chime with mine.
It is just such a shame for me that he ballsed up about Brexit.
Maybe Labour could be the best out of a pretty bad lot.
-
Painful interview with Dawn Butler :(
Love the clip very funny. It's not Jezza's style though is it, that's what makes him different.
Campbell and Mandy are still there in the background pulling strings riling up the dissidents though (probably in a style not dissimilar to the clip)
The best of a bad lot maybe... So the flippant, simplified choices are;
a) a party that no longer has a purpose.
b) a party that would gladly poop on your disabled grandmother.
c) err the yellow ones.
d) the party that has lovely policies but is lead by someone nobody likes.
e) the party everyone should probably vote for, to save our asses, but won't.
-
Brutus - The media misconstruing what the Lab party has said. It's the actual MPs doing that. I am sure that you have listened to this, the full interview is an eye opener.
Exhibit A, Dawn Butler MP for Brent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304)
This is the problem, Labour has been off message for the last couple of years.
It's looked like a rabble from the outside, disagreements laid out in the open etc.
Jezzer doesn't seem to have a Malcom Tucker to sort out the loose cannons.
I'm not getting misty eyed over Blair, but the party view was then tightly controlled.
Alistar Campbell / Mandy ensured that there were enough Tuckers to go round everybody remained on message.
Jezzer needed to be in the first instance pragmatic, compromise to build up alliances and unify the party, which would develop some discipline within the party. Has he done that? See exhibit A, sadly day 2 of the election.
Just for some humour Butler should be getting some of the following treatment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUky4_A7Zw4 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUky4_A7Zw4)
Having listened to Jezzers speech today, his ideas chime with mine.
It is just such a shame for me that he ballsed up about Brexit.
Maybe Labour could be the best out of a pretty bad lot.
That poor woman. She's doing her best to promote the party and she's got nothing to work with other than wailing about how the election is rigged. How can you have an MP who doesn't know the lines? Who doesn't know what party policy is? How were Labour not prepared for a general election to be called? It's been widely discussed in the press for months now - "why hasn't May called the election yet?" What the fuck are they doing all day?! THIS is our opposition, folks.
It's Eddie Mair for Christ's sake. It's the jolly drive-time wind down with funny jingles and panda updates. What would have happened if a Labour MP had stumbled into a room with Paxman or Humphrys or Snow? Bloodbath.
-
You auditioning for the role of Malcom Tucker WH?
-
A good leader that has bad consquences for the less wealthy? Hmmmmmm. That would be the definition of poor leadership for me.
Effective leadership (effective is a much more meaningful measure of leadership than 'goodness') can only be defined in terms of its ability to achieve its own stated aims. In this sense, the verdict has to be out on May for now - though calling the GE does promise to prove effective. Thatcher, on the other hand, and no matter how much I despised and opposed her aims (and means), has to judged a highly effective leader for the vast majority of her political career. The question has to be, can Corbyn achieve his stated aims using the leadership tools at his disposal? Like many people, I do not believe so. This is a judgement not on his aims but on his leadership.
-
Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).
See my facebook post: I think (on a brief glance) if i still lived in NA I'd probably vote Tory. The sitting MP grills Hunt all the time about the NHS. Which is a lot more than Corbyn does.
NA?
-
Didn't the whole media conspiracy thing originate from the CIA as a tool to discredit anyone asking questions about Kennedy's assassination? (Point is, it's not an argument it's a method of 'brushing off'.)
A good leader that has bad consquences for the less wealthy? Hmmmmmm. That would be the definition of poor leadership for me.
Corbyn a good leader that could lead this Country effectively?
Of course what anyone might determine to be the qualities of a good leader maybe completely different. Should he be elected as PM we will find out won't we. I like the fact he is principled, I like the fact that he has been calling the media out recently (you won't see that footage much on the BBC), I like that fact that he has had the strength to stand strong against the all the sniping and back stabbing, I like his beard and jam making, I love that he is not owned by anyone, I love that he is willing to stand up for others. All qualities of what I would call a good leader. Maybe the question should be will Corbyn be allowed to be a good leader because I can't foresee the sniping stopping.
Principled? The guy tolerates anti semites and took money off the Iranian state broadcaster after they'd been banned from broadcasting in the U.K. thanks to their involvement in torture. Chuck in the shitty treatment of female MPs on his watch and his attempt to force through mandatory reelection (you're supposed to be fighting the Tories Jeremy, not your so-called own side), and he looks more like a shifty lying toad than a man of integrity.
-
OK, so for an exemplar of leadership. Jeremy Corbyn is haunted by a widespread belief that he is actually pro-Brexit and that anything he says to the contrary is some kind of dissembling or gaming. It may or may not be true but the point is that he has utterly failed to counteract it. The net result; he isn't trusted. Here's the exemplar - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/20/how-marine-le-pen-played-the-media - Marine Le Pen. She's much more likely to achieve her aims than Corbyn. It may be abhorrent, but its leadership.
I'm actually much more worried about France than Britain.
-
I have lots of issues with Corbyn. For all the new politics chat, his policies haven't been very different from Ed Millibands, and all sorts of problems he has failed to address as stated by others here.
The bigger issue here is that even if Corbyn was going to be the greatest prime minister ever and his image is purely a result of the media campaign against him, it doesn't make any difference. He has still lost the war of words and he won't be winning the election regardless of how unjust some people may feel that is.
So who is playing games here? Corbyn is happy to let the Labour Party be absolutely crushed for a point of principle and deluded pride? That's what's going to effect real people who actually need the Labour Party in power. Are these the actions of an honerable man? He should have taken the moral high ground and accepted that he was never going to be the vehicle for change he wanted to be.
-
Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).
See my facebook post: I think (on a brief glance) if i still lived in NA I'd probably vote Tory. The sitting MP grills Hunt all the time about the NHS. Which is a lot more than Corbyn does.
NA?
Newton Abbot.
Or as it's more commonly known locally, Newt Town Scabbot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm actually much more worried about France than Britain.
Rightly so. She will show her true colours if she holds office. Freedom, equality and fraternity will be under threat. It's easier to see the EU surviving without Britain than France, but both...
-
Le Pen stands almost no chance winning office. It's a small worry for us, since we'd have to leave France and move our savings to another EU country before she'd confiscate them (us being foreigners and all)—but frankly, Mélenchon is almost as bad.
However, I'm a bit pissed off with the anglophone media for implying that a Le Pen election in the second round is quite likely to happen. Of course, anything can happen, a meteor might hit the earth etc. But without some really solid analysis to explain away her abysmal performance in polls [historically speaking French polls have been really fucking awesome], especially against Macron, anyone who's claiming that Le Pen is likely to win is disseminating propaganda.
PS. The euro will collapse tomorrow ... the day after tomorrow ... the next week ... soon goddammit ... at some point in the future ...
-
I thought she and Macron were polling about the same with Le Pen on 23ish and Macron on about 24? Of corse if the anti- fascist vote goes squarely to Macron in round 2 it's a safe outcome but I still find current polls a concern:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-election-poll-idUKKBN17J18X (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-election-poll-idUKKBN17J18X)
-
(Sorry for being unclear, I meant that Le Pen is very unlikely to win a 2nd round. And it is not even sure that she'll get to the 2nd round. Watch Fillon surge.)
Yes, Marine could well go to 2nd round, but she'd get totally and absolutely crushed by Macron in a 2nd round. And totally crushed by Fillon as well (unless the daft socialist bobos show their true fascist face and abstain).
A Mélenchon - Le Pen is harder to predict but not very likely at this time.
This is the only link needed for following the polls:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_sondages_sur_l%27%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_fran%C3%A7aise_de_2017
-
(Sorry for being unclear, I meant that Le Pen is very unlikely to win a 2nd round. And it is not even sure that she'll get to the 2nd round. Watch Fillon surge.)
Yes, Marine could well go to 2nd round, but she'd get totally and absolutely crushed by Macron in a 2nd round. And totally crushed by Fillon as well (unless the daft socialist bobos show their true fascist face and abstain).
A Mélenchon - Le Pen is harder to predict but not very likely at this time.
This is the only link needed for following the polls:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_sondages_sur_l%27%C3%A9lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_fran%C3%A7aise_de_2017
It'll be interesting to see how the tragedy of the shooting in Paris affects the poll. Le Pen seems to be making a thinly veiled attempt to exploit it, will everyone see through this? Sadly I suspect it'll be the same as the USA situation where Trump supporters backed him irrespective of any crimes, incompetence, ignorance, nepotism... And his critics remained just as entrenched.
-
Oh Fillon as well... ( https://twitter.com/ellensalvi/status/855380946991947777 ) Meanwhile the French twitter-sphere is buzzing with rumours that the police shooting is a
Soviet Russian provocation. (The perp is a common criminal with no ties to sunni fascism, ISIS statement was weird and named wrong perp, etc etc.). I don't think it will move the polls that much, compared to Nice/Paris-shooting1/Paris-shooting2 it was kind of pathetic, the police and the military clearly did their job competently etc.
-
Much like the German one?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bombing
Anyway, I know who I'm voting for. She's ace!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170422/454c458caf2a77da20556a25367aba73.jpg)
-
I'd vote for anyone bringing back the ... guillotine? Quoi? :lol:
-
Illuminating she thinks Nicola Sturgeon may bring about WWIII. Presumably withdrawing from Europe will make it all stable again.
Interesting that classes should all stay in the same room and not move around too. How will that work at secondary school? Art in the science lab? Dress-making in the fume cupboard? The cross curricular opportunities are endless.
I wonder what the tariffs on the guilllotines might be?
-
Illuminating she thinks Nicola Sturgeon may bring about WWIII. Presumably withdrawing from Europe will make it all stable again.
Interesting that classes should all stay in the same room and not move around too. How will that work at secondary school? Art in the science lab? Dress-making in the fume cupboard? The cross curricular opportunities are endless.
I wonder what the tariffs on the guilllotines might be?
Read that as cross dressing in the fume cupboard...
Not sure she'd approve.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Anyone know if this is "true" (the change part)?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170422/45596d403528211a9111d3170d4f10f3.jpg)
-
Think they can try form minority government, I'll check.
-
On the other point:
"Incorrect, charges would have no impact on their ability to sit in the house. That would only change if they received a sentence of over 12 months custodial. Which would take 18 months to happen and is incredibly unlikely."
-
Much like the German one?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bombing
Anyway, I know who I'm voting for. She's ace!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170422/454c458caf2a77da20556a25367aba73.jpg)
Is that real? It's got fake news written all over it.
-
Much like the German one?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bombing
Anyway, I know who I'm voting for. She's ace!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170422/454c458caf2a77da20556a25367aba73.jpg)
Is that real? It's got fake news written all over it.
I'm fairly sure the German attack was intended as a stock market manipulation, or at least the German authorities think so.
The other? Well, it's been picked up by mainstream, if that's any guide:
https://www.indy100.com/article/article-ukip-candidate-gisela-allen-glasgow-7696526
-
Further to early point on MPS being imprisoned:
"That would be true in the event of a dearth of MPs but there'd be by-elections for them anyway."
-
Much like the German one?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bombing
Anyway, I know who I'm voting for. She's ace!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170422/454c458caf2a77da20556a25367aba73.jpg)
Is that real? It's got fake news written all over it.
Starting to stray off topic a bit now, but another false flag op in Krautland.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldier-syria-refugee-false-flag-terror-attack-posing-arrested-frankfurt-france-bavaria-a7705231.html?cmpid=facebook-post
I've little doubt, though, that much of the swing to the right in this country is connected to terrorism across Europe and not just within the UK; so this has an effect on people's mind set here.
-
Can the Leopard change his shorts?
Not sure, but he can definitely soil them...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-evening-standard-editor-theresa-may-first-day-attack-election-campaign-slogan-a7713501.html?cmpid=facebook-post
-
I had a visit from my labour canvassers this evening. I like my local labour MP - I think she's great. The canvasser was actually my local councillor as well.
However, she couldn't answer why I should vote Labour when they are backing brexit and I am a strident remain voter - and also couldn't answer why I should vote for a party who's leader I thought was ineffective and weak... She just repeated 'we need to get the Tories out' - 'what will five more years of them do?' etc..
At the time I thought that was pretty weak (though she can't answer the labour conflict over brexit - as there isn't an answer) - but on reflection, get the Tories out is about all there is in Labours armoury really. That made me feel quite sad..
-
Well the manifesto's aren't out yet..
But I don't think it matters too much what's in the Labour Party's manifesto when it portrays itself as a shower of bewildered shit - an image Dianne Abbott helped to reinforce today..
-
Well the manifesto's aren't out yet..
But I don't think it matters too much what's in the Labour Party's manifesto when it portrays itself as a shower of bewildered shit - an image Dianne Abbott helped to reinforce today..
Pete you are spoilt for choice over pro Brexit parties in this election, cons, lab, ukip, BNP, the choice is yours.
Diane "the big mouth" Abbott aka rent a gob. What a dick, Cobyn needs to get Malcom Tucker onto Diane, pronto. Just when things need to be slick and whiter than white, Diana pops up. At least she was trying to answer the questions, but not very well granted.
Unlike May's blathering on Marr on Sunday's show, no answers to any questions about NHS, education, Brexit, food banks, this is the Primeminister of the "strong yet stable" flavour. Any answers to be found in the manifesto, errr right o. Just remember she voted to go to war in Iraq, Jezzer against, so maybe he has better judgment. May can't even eat chips without grimacing for christs sake.
Just read this
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/beneath-diane-abbott-police-funding-gaffes-labour-numbers-make-sense (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/beneath-diane-abbott-police-funding-gaffes-labour-numbers-make-sense)
Seems as though lab policies might be actually costed and make some sense.
Tomtom, Cobyn politically naive, should not have caved in over Brexit so readily, also danced to Mays tune over early election, could have forced Cons into no confidence vote. But I think he comes across far better than the other candidates in person, seems balanced and fair, seems to be doing a good job on the campaign trail, policies seem good ones apart from Brexit. The lab canvassers are right, anything but Tory, will do for now.
Leaning towards Lab, even though I don't agree with Brexit stance. Still think Brexit not a done deal yet. U turns aplenty I am sure over this issue.
-
I don't get why the Diane Abbott thing is such such a big deal. People get flustered sometimes, doesn't seem to me like the huge issue the news is making It out to be..
-
You would almost think that the mainstream media, a huge proportion of which is owned by half a dozen righting billionaires, is biased against Labour.
-
I don't get why the Diane Abbott thing is such such a big deal. People get flustered sometimes, doesn't seem to me like the huge issue the news is making It out to be..
This is because you are not in the pocket of the Tory backers and puppeteers...
Unlike the media.
Still can't imagine voting Lab.
Repeat after me:
"Strong and Stable!"
We're fucked, aren't we?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That was a car crash from Abbot though. She's the shadow home sec. announcing a big policy and it was clear that she didn't know the numbers. Even if she hadn't been asked the question it should have been a "We will invest 300mill in 10,000 fresh coppers and will pay for it by closing down tax loopholes/insisting British trading businesses trade in Britain/blah-blah"... basic stuff.
-
I don't get why the Diane Abbott thing is such such a big deal. People get flustered sometimes, doesn't seem to me like the huge issue the news is making It out to be..
Abarro, where to start. The fact is she is shadow Home Secretary, quite a big gig, she should know her dept inside out, that's her job to have answers to questions about these matters. Abbotts fluffing her lines lends credence to May/Cons/medias view that Cobyn/Labour isn't/aren't fit to run country. To fight against this perception as I said Lab/jez need to be much slicker, so that lab message is unified and clearly presented and doesn't fan May/cons/medias views/perception.
-
That was a car crash from Abbot though. She's the shadow home sec. announcing a big policy and it was clear that she didn't know the numbers. Even if she hadn't been asked the question it should have been a "We will invest 300mill in 10,000 fresh coppers and will pay for it by closing down tax loopholes/insisting British trading businesses trade in Britain/blah-blah"... basic stuff.
What FD says. I've worked as a press officer, prepped people for interviews from junior staff doing it for the first time up to chief execs, politicians, etc, as well as having been on national radio and TV myself. The figures are the absolute basics, the first thing that she should have been saying, any half decent media team would have gone over this stuff for as many times as it took to sink in.
Either Abbott can't master the basics of an interview brief or the Labour Party are so shambolic that they can't prepare the basic messages for their team to deliver in a fucking general election. Quite honestly either possibility is shocking.
Remember that moaning about professional politicians, well here's an unprofessional politician.
-
FD and Sean have said it. It's not the fact that she fumbled the lines, it's the fact that she took one of Labour's key GE missiles and pointed it at her own party instead of the Tories. The cost of a policy and the source of its funding are the two most basic aspects of it that I can think of. For a shadow home sec to fuck that up so badly is just unforgivable. If she'd simply corrected herself it would have been fine, but the fact that you can hear her trying to make up the numbers live on air is just awful.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a party member and I want to support them, but this is just the pits. If anybody thinks the left wouldn't jump on a similar performance by a Tory politician then they're dreaming.
-
Is the Labour Party competent to be in charge of the economy? It's the question the Tories have been constantly asking and for many people that Labour have just answered. Sadly.
-
Meanwhile, Tory candidate in Wakefield makes snobbish and disparaging remark on twitter about the working classes, underlining the general Tory policy on the working classes and the fact they should just stick to eating gruel at the workhouse, yet obviosuly this is nothing compared to a woman fluffing her lines in one of dozens of TV interviews.
Meanwhile, haunted art gallery owner May agrees to take questions from the press as long as they aren't allowed to film or photograph the exchange. Let she deviate from the "strong and stable" mantra.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to divert attention away from a building election expenses fraud scandal, May calls a general election a few weeks after saying she would definitely not call a general election, in part to consolidate her majority in order to be able to pass legislation relating to the fallout of a farcical referendum that nobody wanted but was called by her predecessor in an attempt to placate the hard right factions of his own party. Strong and stable my arse. And I'm supposed to believe that it's Labour who are unfit to run the country?
Don't get me started on schools or the NHS which are being cut to breaking point, or the fact that load of Tory top brass are set to profit from interests in private healthcare firms and the like.
-
But the Tories reeeaaallllyyy understand economics!
Town halls buy back Right-to-Buy homes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39264631
-
I don't get why the Diane Abbott thing is such such a big deal. People get flustered sometimes, doesn't seem to me like the huge issue the news is making It out to be..
I know I'm just repeating what's been said but.... she's the Shadow Home Secretary! She's launching a flagship policy, especially important as it was our glorious Prime Minister who cut the staffing in the police force in the first place, and instead of the news being the policy, it's now just another "incompetent Labour" story. It wasn't even face to face, it was a phone interview. She could have been sat there with all the facts written down and a press officer next to her scribbling down extra info as required. She's going on a large audience radio show that will obviously be hostile (it gives a show to Katie Hopkins for f**ks sake) as she has't bothered to prepare. I'd be having strips torn off me by my boss if I turned up at a client meeting that unprepared, I expect more form someone who wants to run the country for us.
That's not to say I find the Tory policy of saying nothing any better and May's performances over the weekend on TV when she refused to actually articulate any policies is deplorable, she's stifling the debate as she can only lose if she engages because whilst she keeps her mouth shut, Labour just self implode.
-
I don't get why the Diane Abbott thing is such such a big deal. People get flustered sometimes, doesn't seem to me like the huge issue the news is making It out to be..
Well she has always been a walking cliché on multiculturalism and race relations and a proud example of the top level Labour party disdain for their own education policies (private education for her son) so I imagine it is just hugely satisfying for them to put the boot in when she leaves a wide open goal...
-
I don't get why the Diane Abbott thing is such such a big deal. People get flustered sometimes, doesn't seem to me like the huge issue the news is making It out to be..
Well she has always been a walking cliché on multiculturalism and race relations and a proud example of the top level Labour party disdain for their own education policies (private education for her son) so I imagine it is just hugely satisfying for them to put the boot in when she leaves a wide open goal...
As others have said really: I don't like the idea of 5 years of May, but at least she is vaguely professional, although a useless home secretary herself. But the Labour party is, in general, worse at the moment. Corbyn is interested in nothing but keeping hold of his little castle of the party. No interest in government. For god's sake the man takes the day off on Monday if he's been on a Sunday chat show; what sort of PM would he be? Would he do a short week if he had to go to a cobra meeting?!
-
Meanwhile, Tory candidate in Wakefield makes snobbish and disparaging remark on twitter about the working classes, underlining the general Tory policy on the working classes and the fact they should just stick to eating gruel at the workhouse, yet obviosuly this is nothing compared to a woman fluffing her lines in one of dozens of TV interviews.
Meanwhile, haunted art gallery owner May agrees to take questions from the press as long as they aren't allowed to film or photograph the exchange. Let she deviate from the "strong and stable" mantra.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to divert attention away from a building election expenses fraud scandal, May calls a general election a few weeks after saying she would definitely not call a general election, in part to consolidate her majority in order to be able to pass legislation relating to the fallout of a farcical referendum that nobody wanted but was called by her predecessor in an attempt to placate the hard right factions of his own party. Strong and stable my arse. And I'm supposed to believe that it's Labour who are unfit to run the country?
Don't get me started on schools or the NHS which are being cut to breaking point, or the fact that load of Tory top brass are set to profit from interests in private healthcare firms and the like.
I don't think I've seen one person on this thread say that they support May's government or the Conservative party. Their policies are abhorrent, yet they are able to implement them so easily because they behave like a relatively well-oiled machine when the party of opposition is in such disarray. Diane Abbott's interview was undoubtedly an inexcusable fuck up, and to view it any other way is to be unconditionally forgiving.
I think I'm more angry with the Labour party than I am with the Conservatives. The Tories are just doing what comes naturally to them, what we all expect of them - reducing the size of the state - in a very competent way. It's Labour's job to present an organised and effective opposition and to seek to kick them out of power. In our parliamentary democracy, a party is only effective in influencing events if it poses a credible threat to the government's majority. Labour aren't even close to this, due in a large part to the incompetence of the leadership.
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
-
Meanwhile, Tory candidate in Wakefield makes snobbish and disparaging remark on twitter about the working classes, underlining the general Tory policy on the working classes and the fact they should just stick to eating gruel at the workhouse, yet obviosuly this is nothing compared to a woman fluffing her lines in one of dozens of TV interviews.
Meanwhile, haunted art gallery owner May agrees to take questions from the press as long as they aren't allowed to film or photograph the exchange. Let she deviate from the "strong and stable" mantra.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to divert attention away from a building election expenses fraud scandal, May calls a general election a few weeks after saying she would definitely not call a general election, in part to consolidate her majority in order to be able to pass legislation relating to the fallout of a farcical referendum that nobody wanted but was called by her predecessor in an attempt to placate the hard right factions of his own party. Strong and stable my arse. And I'm supposed to believe that it's Labour who are unfit to run the country?
Don't get me started on schools or the NHS which are being cut to breaking point, or the fact that load of Tory top brass are set to profit from interests in private healthcare firms and the like.
That's a lot of whatabouttery there Dave.
Whatabout you give me a compelling argument to vote Labour for positive reasons, that doesn't involve 'but the Cons did this, but the Cons said that'.
-
Loads of arguments for any of the centre/left parties Pete, sorry I didn't realise I had to lay out the Labour manifesto in that above post for balance.
-
I'm waiting to hear them...
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
Constant complaining that the election is rigged or that the media is biased against you is straight out of the Trump playbook. It's as weak as it gets.
Dave, it's really fucking annoying to have someone disregard your opinion and for them to accuse you of being brainwashed by a biased media every time that a criticism is made of a party that we all need to be doing better.
I understand there is a lot of media bias against the Labour party. It is because I am so acutely aware of this that I am able to distinguish those events which are genuine fuck ups and are being fairly reported as such from those events which are none stories.
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
Especially true if the above can be used as an argument to not vote for left-wing parties therefore further undermining their ability to oppose the bunch of cunts.
-
Constant complaining ..... that the media is biased against you is straight out of the Trump playbook. It's as weak as it gets.
I understand there is a lot of media bias against the Labour party.
So let me get this right, we're OK with acknowledging the bias, but it's not OK to talk about it? It's a huge issue, an issue that can and has been shown to swing elections.
If Trump and indeed the Nazis in the 1930s moaned about media bias it's because they are/were lying despots, doesn't mean legitimate concern for media bias is thrown out of the window today for fear for kneejerk comparison to the above. You're better than that Will.
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
Especially true if the above can be used as an argument to not vote for left-wing parties therefore further undermining their ability to oppose the bunch of cunts.
This assumes that the only reason you need to vote for a party is that they are not the government. As it happens, I expect that at this election this will the reason that I vote Labour, just because they represent the best chance (though it is not a very good chance) of ejecting the Tory government. This should be a really easy decision for me and many others. The decision is made difficult because: in my opinion, the shadow cabinet could not run a government effectively, at a time when a stable government is critical to all our futures (people know this, that's why the Tories have selected it as their slogan); and the Labour party is supporting our exiting the European Union.
So, yes, I am angry with the Labour party, because they're making unforced errors and giving me good reasons not to vote for them.
-
Constant complaining ..... that the media is biased against you is straight out of the Trump playbook. It's as weak as it gets.
I understand there is a lot of media bias against the Labour party.
So let me get this right, we're OK with acknowledging the bias, but it's not OK to talk about it? It's a huge issue, an issue that can and has been shown to swing elections.
If Trump and indeed the Nazis in the 1930s moaned about media bias it's because they are/were lying despots, doesn't mean legitimate concern for media bias is thrown out of the window today for fear for kneejerk comparison to the above. You're better than that Will.
No no. You're allowed to talk about it. But don't let it be all you talk about, and your only answer to valid criticisms of the Labour party.
-
in my opinion, the shadow cabinet could not run a government effectively, at a time when a stable government is critical to all our futures
Are you Theresa May? Do I win £5?
-
So, yes, I am angry with the Labour party, because they're making unforced errors and giving me good reasons not to vote for them.
This is a real problem.
I find it hard to want to vote for Labour - except to stop the Tories. Thats a good reason, but ffs - there should be positive reasons to vote Labour rather than 'they're not as bad'.... Even their brexit position is 'we wont be as hard as the Tories'...
Pete has a point....
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
This. It blows my mind when I hear people blaming Labour for things the Tories do.
-
So, yes, I am angry with the Labour party, because they're making unforced errors and giving me good reasons not to vote for them.
This is a real problem.
I find it hard to want to vote for Labour - except to stop the Tories. Thats a good reason, but ffs - there should be positive reasons to vote Labour rather than 'they're not as bad'.... Even their brexit position is 'we wont be as hard as the Tories'...
Pete has a point....
No shit, it's what the whole (non-conservative) country are thinking. The country is crying out for a credible alternative way, but Labour clearly isn't it (credible). If it quacks like a dog :-\
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
This. It blows my mind when I hear people blaming Labour for things the Tories do.
If the police were to have the opportunity to prevent a murder or a rape, and failed to do so due in a large part to their own incompetence, would you be angry with the police or the murderer or both? Let's say the patrol car wasn't fuelled and ready to go, so the police didn't make it to the scene of the crime in time. The crime is still committed by the criminal, but the police would also have failed in their duty to do everything they could to prevent it.
This is not a stretched analogy. It is the duty of the party of opposition to do its best to prevent the government from doing bad things.
-
I think the rightwing media's job is done if people now readily accept the Tories as a bunch of cunts and yet the blame for their conduct goes on the left wing parties for not stopping them. What a time to be alive.
Constant complaining that the election is rigged or that the media is biased against you is straight out of the Trump playbook. It's as weak as it gets.
Dave, it's really fucking annoying to have someone disregard your opinion and for them to accuse you of being brainwashed by a biased media every time that a criticism is made of a party that we all need to be doing better.
I understand there is a lot of media bias against the Labour party. It is because I am so acutely aware of this that I am able to distinguish those events which are genuine fuck ups and are being fairly reported as such from those events which are none stories.
Whatever media bias there is currently is predominantly against the current Labour leadership, rather than the Labour Party as a whole.
Dave - The Guardian and the FT both reported the shambolic DA interview, and neither have any affiliations to your oft-repeated rightwing billionaire Tory donors.
The Times has prominent centre-Left leader writers like Philip Collins and Oliver Kamm (the former ex Social Market Foundation and TB speechwriter) who have written at length and with seemingly total freedom about the difficulty of supporting the current Labour leadership despite everything that is going on elsewhere.
What the DA episode proves beyond doubt is, in retrospect, what an effective political force the early years of the Blair administration was. They were convincing at statesmanship, well-briefed and professional. DA didn't even care that she fucked that interview up - there was no sense of impending doom in her voice. Just the delusional self-confidence of someone who thinks she knows better.
-
I know it is no comfort to anyone but Laura Koenssberg interviewed my mate Donald and me while waiting for Theresa May to come along the Quay in Mevagissey. She is not as hard at a personal level as her screen persona would suggest.
-
I know it is no comfort to anyone but Laura Koenssberg interviewed my mate Donald and me while waiting for Theresa May to come along the Quay in Mevagissey. She is not as hard at a personal level as her screen persona would suggest.
I find this very comforting. What about St Theresa though?
-
I know it is no comfort to anyone but Laura Koenssberg interviewed my mate Donald and me while waiting for Theresa May to come along the Quay in Mevagissey. She is not as hard at a personal level as her screen persona would suggest.
So she gave you an easy ride? Yet more bias in the media, eh Nigel?
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Nigel-Farage-PoI-2-690.jpg)
-
This. It blows my mind when I hear people blaming Labour for things the Tories do.
There not, they're quite rightly pissed off with Labour for doing nothing about it and for f**king up any opportunity they get to make a difference.
None of the above means they'll vote Tory or support the Tory government, you can still be pissed off at Labour and furious with the Tories.
-
Dave - The Guardian and the FT both reported the shambolic DA interview, and neither have any affiliations to your oft-repeated rightwing billionaire Tory donors.
Thanks for pointing that out, although the FT supported the Tories in 2010 and 2015 didn't they?
Anyway I look forward to hearing what Farage or Nuttalls has to say about the DA thing when they are inevitably on Question Time tomorrow.
-
Although I've never voted Labour I must admit their coverage from the BBC does not seem very even handed recently. Keunssberg in particular appears to be struggling to hide her glee every time she gets a chance to stick the boot in Corbyn's direction. It all feels a bit Telegraph for a national broadcaster.
-
If anybody thinks the left wouldn't jump on a similar performance by a Tory politician then dreaming.
They wouldn't have. Since Corbyn took over, Labour have failed to jump on any of the Tories' huge mistakes.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the papers would be full of stories about Tom Watson sticking the knife in to Corbyn for failing to hold Boris to account for his latest error. Meanwhile, the competent, stable Tories would continue unchallenged to do and say as they please.
A party who can accidentally drag us out of the EU against the government's wishes due to internal party squabbles while having no plans for how to actually achieve this should be dead and buried, they shouldn't get so much as a whiff of power for a decade. That they appear to be on target to stay in government with a landslide victory is an embarrassment for our country's political system.
-
Although I've never voted Labour I must admit their coverage from the BBC does not seem very even handed recently. Keunssberg in particular appears to be struggling to hide her glee every time she gets a chance to stick the boot in Corbyn's direction. It all feels a bit Telegraph for a national broadcaster.
It would seem that the BBC Trust has recently upheld complaints about Kuenssberg's lack of impartiality, I think this might be it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38666914
-
I'm waiting to hear them...
Pledges here and have been for a while.
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/10-pledges (http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/10-pledges)
As for media bias it has always been this way, it is no different today than it has been in the past.
Labour aren't helping themselves by constantly shooting themselves in the foot.
This stems from sloppy leadership and this comes from the top.
Be it the MP for Brent the other week or Abbot yesterday, or disunity among Lab MP's.
The flip flopping and bungling shouldn't be happening it doesn't inspire confidence.
Tories may win, but at some point in time the wheel will turn and they will get a right kicking.
-
Dave - The Guardian and the FT both reported the shambolic DA interview, and neither have any affiliations to your oft-repeated rightwing billionaire Tory donors.
Thanks for pointing that out, although the FT supported the Tories in 2010 and 2015 didn't they?
That the FT did so in 2015 was actually a bit of a surprise given their fairly consistent articles bemoaning austerity. Nevertheless, I still find them a broadly rational media outlet that's has fairly even handed reporting.
As the old communists used to say: "Read the Morning Star for the Party line and the FT to know what's really going on."
-
By the way the media love a good politician looking incompetent story. Tory ministers have looked ridiculous in the pass and the media does not bury that. And Diane's gaff spoke for itself without any in depth analysis.
-
May can simply repeat the 4 soundbits ad nauseum - sit back and let Labour own goal at the moment. Crosby playing a simple game.
-
I see Corbyn is suggesting abolishing hospital parking charges. Not that I disagree with them, but this is straight out of the 2015 ukip manifesto.
Fortunately, this morning the Tories are going to cheer us all up with some proper phat hip hop innit blood. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/08/straight-outta-chingford-iain-duncan-smith-rap-battles-diane-abbott
-
Not to feel left out, the Tories' proposed cap on energy prices is straight out of the Labour 2015 manifesto.
-
Going by this thread it looks like we will need to rely on the young people of our country to affect some sort of change.
Setting aside the stuff about leadership, bungles, personality, that's their policy, strong and stable etc...
A few Positive reasons to vote Labour or at least not vote Conservative;
Living wage £10 minimum wage.
Increase in tax for the uber rich.
Nurses who can't afford to feed their families will finally get a pay rise.
End of employment tribunal fees.
End of unpaid internships.
No more zero hours contracts.
A stop to privatization of NHS.
Charter of private tenants rights.
Increased rights in the work place.
Universal Childcare.
'Insourcing' of public services.
Publicly owned railways.
Close the gender pay gap.
Stop employers undercutting with overseas staff.
More holidays!
You care about old people in need.
You care about young people in need.
You care about disabled people in need.
Full rights for EU citizens living and working in UK.
Human rights.
-
All excellent policies, although we've been waiting since 2010 for some half decent proposals, so it's good to see something start to be put forward.
The problem is that more than the policies' appeal, it's the visceral 'how do I feel about this lot in charge' which guides most voters' final decision.
-
Visceral is right; in the referendum people overwhelmingly followed their gut reaction because there were no `facts` to speak of.
-
Just watched this, really, really sad. Austerity is an abstract catch all term but the reality is hard for so many. I can't for the life of me understand why you would support a party that has put in place all those cuts. It really makes my blood boil, that those that need help, like the man with Parkinson's in the film, are left on the scrap heap.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/may/09/cuts-anger-frustration-and-labour-still-cant-break-through-video (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/may/09/cuts-anger-frustration-and-labour-still-cant-break-through-video)
I don't think these elections are about "how do I feel about this lot in charge" more "what's in it for me." As I have said before lab policies for me are good ones, trying to create a fairer society, yes all pledges might not be met but they are targets to work towards. I don't think I can bring myself to back the Fibdems(Tory enablers).
At the end of the day will be voting for my local mp, the next primeminister I won't have a say in. If Lab win, can see Brexit at worst being soft, or at best kicked into long grass. Jezzer was ambivalent about this today.
-
Going by this thread it looks like we will need to rely on the young people of our country to affect some sort of change.
We certainly seem to be depending on the young but it's If the Tories win that we're going to see change, -all of it bad but definitely change - leaving the EU, end of the welfare state and likely of the U.K. itself.
Aren't "conservatives" supposed to conserve things?
-
Aren't "conservatives" supposed to conserve things?
Yes but only their own cash.
-
I think I liked everything that Corbyn said today.
-
Just watched this, really, really sad. Austerity is an abstract catch all term but the reality is hard for so many. I can't for the life of me understand why you would support a party that has put in place all those cuts.
Exactly what I was trying to say rather clumsily a way back in this thread. eg. If you have a disability or know someone with a disability you will fully understand the reality of austerity.
Here's some reality from personal experience, my wife has Charcott Marie-Tooth disease - a degenerative neuro muscular condition. A profit making company assessed her fit for work, amongst other things they lied in their report claiming she had climbed a flight of stairs to get to the interview, the so-called 'health care professional' had no idea what CMT is. Her carers allowance, Disability Living Allowance and mobility allowance were all ceased on the advice of this 'professional'. Of course we appealed and in the meantime we were able to survive on my income (imagine if there is no other income) whilst awaiting our day in court and gathering evidence to support the appeal. We won the appeal. (Imagine if you had learning difficulties or a mental health condition that would make the process of appealing too difficult).
I then lost my job due to austerity cuts and my former profession (youth work) was decimated. Valuable support for young people removed from our communities and thousands of youth workers unemployed.
So whilst we are discussing the vagaries of party politics, blaming others for the destruction of political parties and discussing whether an individual is electable or not. I would with all my heart, as a caring person, ask anyone reading this to consider the affect a government policy has upon individuals. For if we continue down the line we are currently going there will be more homeless people, more people needlessly dying, weakened communities and less support for those at most need in our society. That is reality, if you are voting to perpetuate this situation or considering not voting against this situation, I despair for you and the society I am a part of.
-
That's horrendous. I had a disabled parent; my heart goes out to you.
-
Thanks JR. We are doing just fine and it turned out OK for us at present. However, we have a very personal understanding of what austerity means in reality and the implications of an abusive state system for those with no fall backs. Use your vote to stop this continuing or most likely worsening.
-
Oh don't worry about that. Where I live is it's Tory (incumbent) or LibDem (previous MP) so pretty straightforward choice tbh.
-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1483993644995411&substory_index=0&id=115082048553251
-
Just for nostalgia, pressing the flesh can be hazardous.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhME8dcOqc (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhME8dcOqc)
Prezzer was told by Blair to "reconnect with the electorate" so he did.
Just waiting for 2017's rumble in Rhyl equivalent.
Running over the Beeb cameramans foot doesn't cut it.
Shame it wasn't kouenssberg foot, we would never hear the end of it!
-
Chortle
https://twitter.com/Nick_Pettigrew/status/862423397145473024
-
Chortle
https://twitter.com/Nick_Pettigrew/status/862423397145473024
Girl jobs and Boy jobs? Who's in the fucking '70s here?
-
Just for nostalgia, pressing the flesh can be hazardous.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhME8dcOqc (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhME8dcOqc)
Prezzer was told by Blair to "reconnect with the electorate" so he did.
Just waiting for 2017's rumble in Rhyl equivalent.
Running over the Beeb cameramans foot doesn't cut it.
Shame it wasn't kouenssberg foot, we would never hear the end of it!
Gotta hand it to TwoJags, gets a left jab in before the egg hits the floor. Lesson: don't fuck with an ex-boxer.
-
"A politician complaining about the media is like a sailor complaining about the sea"
-
Just for nostalgia, pressing the flesh can be hazardous.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhME8dcOqc (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UhME8dcOqc)
Prezzer was told by Blair to "reconnect with the electorate" so he did.
Just waiting for 2017's rumble in Rhyl equivalent.
Running over the Beeb cameramans foot doesn't cut it.
Shame it wasn't kouenssberg foot, we would never hear the end of it!
Gotta hand it to TwoJags, gets a left jab in before the egg hits the floor. Lesson: don't fuck with an ex-boxer.
Ex Merchant Navy. [emoji123]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I had to laugh.
It was that or cry.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/15/david-squires-on-theresa-may-meeting-voters-hip-hop-ids-and-aspirational-foxes?CMP=fb_gu
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lots being banded around about the manifestos of the different parties on the tinternet.
Most about if Labour's pledges have been properly costed. I'm no account, billions here and there are too abstract for me to imagine.
If Labour doesn't meet all it manifesto pledges its not the end of the world. If they can only afford to finance a few pledges they would be moving things along in the right direction. I would be able to see that the taxes i pay finally being put to good use rather than used to prop up big companies, meddling in the middle east etc.
As for voting strong and stable - having caused brexit and instability, May wants a return to Grammar schools and fox hunting.
Not really the vision of the future I had in mind.
-
That's it isn't it?
The Tories are promising a return to the 1950's.
They're selling to the over 55's a vision of the world they half remember from their youth, when Britain was "Great" and ruled the waves. Grammar schools, Fox Hunting and a rigid class system where everyone knows their place and respects their elders.
Because post war Britain was a fantasy land, a period of rapid recovery and financial boom.
My Grandparents generation, born in the 20's, who actually fought "THE WAR" that so many over 55's harp on about; are mostly gone. That generation grew up surrounded by true poverty and pre-NHS.
Side note: My Grandfather (now gone) grew up in Coventry. With a Father who'd been gassed in the Trenches, a Mother who kept the family by taking in washing, thirteen Brothers and Sisters. In one room and with only one mattress, no bed, between them.
Three of his siblings died from common diseases before they were ten years old, two were permanently disabled by Polio.
Hitler, obligingly, blew their room to atoms along with every brick for streets around. Fortunately his Pa was off Air raid Wardening, his mam serving tea at a NAAFI wagon a few streets away and the kids evacuated at the time (he was in Buckfastleigh, and that's how I ended up here).
The following year, at 16, he joined up.
I can hear him spinning in his grave.
He was a Foreman at the Engineering works in Buckfastleigh, after and a shop-steward. Never a "Red", he hated them with a passion.
Pretty sure he'd recognise May for what she is and be aghast that her support will mainly come from the kids that grew up on the benefits he and his pals fought for during and after the war.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170517/06ff0dbec586cfbefe886888ddb7ada5.jpg)
-
As for voting strong and stable - having caused brexit and instability, May wants a return to Grammar schools and fox hunting.
Not really the vision of the future I had in mind.
If it's stability you're after that means staying in the EU....
-
That's it isn't it?
The Tories are promising a return to the 1950's.
If only! In the 50s the NHS had been launched and BR was running the rail network.
Unless you mean the 1850s ??
-
BBC news tonight. Doing the taking heads with Dumb, Summer, and Hard Of Thinking of Dewsbury.
What issues are important to you?
Local issues really, they're closing our hospital.
Who are you going to vote for?
The Conservatives.
:slap:
-
Why the Left can't win:
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/the-status-quo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
As for voting strong and stable - having caused brexit and instability, May wants a return to Grammar schools and fox hunting.
Not really the vision of the future I had in mind.
If it's stability you're after that means staying in the EU....
True, in an ideal world Brexit wouldn't have happened. The genie is out of the bottle and it is going to take years to put it back in. I dislike Labours stance in support of Brexit, but have feeling if Labour were negotiating we might get some kind of Brexit lite at worst. In a nutshell who would you rather have sorting out worker/legal/everomental protections during Brexit and its aftermath. May and her band of robbers, bozzer, Davies, fox don't cut the mustard for me and will happily sell us all down the swanny.
-
I'm not criticising your POV, just highlighting the irony of the motto, absolute nonsense that it is.
-
As for voting strong and stable - having caused brexit and instability, May wants a return to Grammar schools and fox hunting.
Not really the vision of the future I had in mind.
Some late additions I've just read about are needed for a fuller picture of the conservatives wet dream of the "future."
"Death tax" for those that need care later on in life.
Winter fuel allowance means tested - I can see were how this policy will pan out.
And finally the end of hot school dinners for the kids, just a breakfast if they can get into school on time.
I cant really see any positives to take away here and people vote in the millions for this. :no:
-
I cant really see any positives to take away here and people vote in the millions for this. :no:
There seem to be millions of the retired who still vote trbially - "I'd never vote Labour" but that doesn't explain all of it.
-
Just looking for the Conservatives pledges, couldn't really find anything.
Had to have a quick flick through the manifesto, my eyes feel a bit grubby.
Any how no pledges but they do have "Five Giant Challenges."
In no particular order
1. A strong economy, it aint rocket science, I thought that was a given for any party in government. Country becoming a sink hole so have no problems with fracking as long as it in Conservative heart lands.
2. Brexit and a changing world - a shambles created by the Conservative goons.
3. Enduring social divisions - we will just have to keep enduring???
4. Ageing Society??? er true, cons want to reverse this worrying trend.
5. Fast Changing technology??? er right/true, post Brexit we will be lucky to get around using a horse and cart.
So these are the key pillars of Conservative thought/wisdom.
As I mentioned this morning not really a vision.
-
I'm not sure I have a particular issue with the "death tax", nor means testing things like the winter fuel allowance, nor getting rid of the tripple lock. Care to convince me otherwise on any of them?
Not that this gets me any closer to deciding whether to vote Lib, Lab or Green.. so anyone care to convince me on that front? (In Sheffield Hallam so safeish Lib with an outside chance of Lab)
-
In Clegg's seat it's the part of Sheffield with the lowest Leave votecontingent, and since the LibDems are the only main party against Brexit and Clegg is one of the few talking sense over Europe, I don't see them being unseated by Labour. If it was going to happen it would have happened last time. So logic dictates a vote for the largest non-rightwing party, so vote Clegg.
-
Not that this gets me any closer to deciding whether to vote Lib, Lab or Green.. so anyone care to convince me on that front? (In Sheffield Hallam so safeish Lib with an outside chance of Lab)
Same quandry
Going Green might mean the candidate earns enough votes to get their deposit back.
I'd go Labour if I felt they might have a chance of an outright majority and this seat might sway things but likely go Lib Dem because they oppose leaving the EU and I do think Nick Clegg is quite good, plus he has a high prolfile and has been one of the few to have made really strong, concise arguments against leaving.
-
Interesting ideas on the death tax - and more harshly means testing the old on their care costs. That and the end of the pension triple lock is quite a risk by the Torys - as the Elderly are usually their core vote.
It's also quite a socialist idea - inheritance tax is often argues as being the most effective tool to redress wealth inequality (bought in after ww2 I think - and credited with long term rebalancing in the U.K. Thereafter). Making the elderly pay for their care - by taking capital out of their assets (house) is a very bold and surprising move.
Ok there's fox hunting, grammar schools and Brexit. The three horsemen of the swivel headed loon Tory policy crew. But for a Tory manifesto there are some left wing ideas in there....
I'm not planning to vote for her by the way - just some commentary.
Wonder how the BBC will spin this - up to a month ago I didn't think they were that bad - but they do feel increasingly right wing biased.
-
Agree with Dave.
As with all these "commitments" the devil will be in the detail.
You mention death tax/fuel allowance/free travel cards/triple lock etc, having paid tax, paid your National Insurance etc surely in old age you should be entitled to be treated with dignity and well looked after. If death tax becomes a reality and in old age I am ill and end up in care for years then i will leave behind very little inheritance, which is a crazy state of affairs. Having worked/contributed for nearly 50 years. We should be looking out for each other not fleecing each other.
Maybe I am being too simplistic? I didn't go looking for greater detail in the manifesto as my eyes were hurting too much.
-
Just sayin'...
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170518/2c6873504aff215fc0996e334d577edb.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You mention death tax/fuel allowance/free travel cards/triple lock etc, having paid tax, paid you National Insurance etc surely in old age you should be entitled to be treated with dignity and well looked after.
Being treated with dignity and well looked after is not inherently synonymous with having your care funded in an unsustainable manner or having an absurd triple lock though is it.
If death tax becomes a reality and in old age I am ill and end up in care for years then i will leave behind very little inheritance, which is a crazy state of affairs. Having worked/contributed for nearly 50 years. We should be looking out for each other not fleecing each other.
It strikes me as ironic when a left-wing anti-tory opposes what seems to me to be, in effect, a roundabout way of hiking inheritance tax in order to overcome shortfalls in care budgets. I'm sure that simply increasing inheritance tax would actually be a much better solution, since it removes the lottery/luck aspect of the "death tax" (which in this form is more like a "getting ill tax"), but this would seem to me to be a step towards this rather than a step away from it, and thus likely to be a step in the right direction. You may have worked and contributed for 50 years, but it seems like it's now clear that those contributions were not and are not enough to fund what you would like it to fund. Using money locked up in property to fund it, via a round-about tax seems kinda sensible to me?
On the more minor subject of things like means testing the fuel allowance, again I don't understand how a left-winger would argue that it makes sense for my mum and dad get a fuel allowance to heat their huge, posh houses courtesy of the state? Unless of course it's a logistical thing in that doing the means testing costs as much as just sending out the money to everyone... although at least then it provides jobs at the expense of the rich so actually even then it could be considered advantageous from a redistribution of wealth point of view.
Back on the main point...
I'm totally open to accepting that I'm missing something, and I'm open to conservative arguments that inheritance tax is somehow unfair, but I can't quite get my head around left-wing pro-wealth-redistribution people considering it a bad idea per se, although I can see why it's a bad idea in comparison to a more equitable hike in the inheritance tax rate. Perhaps my views would be different were I old and had worked all my life to save money to pass on to my kids... but then I'd be a Tory voter probably, ironically.
What am I missing?
P.S. Should point out that I've not read the manifesto, so only know what I heard on the news
-
I have to say that I'm with Alex here in not yet being convinced that changing the rules on paying for elderly care is a bad idea. I'm not sure if the proposal is the right mechanism to do it by (haven't got my head round it enough yet), but where there are increasingly more old people with more complex care needs it's not reasonable to expect to have to raise extra revenue for elderly care.
It's quite an astute move from the Tories to do all the shit that they knew they were going to have to do to one of their core voting blocks at a time when they're almost guaranteed an election win. Putting it up front in the manifesto will legitimise it because they'll be able to say they had a strong mandate for it.
-
1.Being treated with dignity and well looked after is not inherently synonymous with having your care funded in an unsustainable manner or having an absurd triple lock though is it.
2. It strikes me as ironic when a left-wing anti-tory opposes what seems to me to be, in effect, a roundabout way of hiking inheritance tax in order to overcome shortfalls in care budgets.
3. On the more minor subject of things like means testing the fuel allowance, again I don't understand how a left-winger would argue that it makes sense for my mum and dad get a fuel allowance to heat their huge, posh houses courtesy of the state?
1. Is it though abarro, is it unsustainable, I can speak for myself, never claimed any benefits, in full time work, have no kids, apart from the occasional visit to the doctor, I don't think I am too reliant on the state for handouts. I would expect having worked hard to be able to retire with grace rather than constantly having to mind the pennies in case I fall ill. A cap on contributions seems fair.
2. There in lies the problem it is a double tax, inheritance tax plus death (care) tax. I don't mind paying more of my working wages to create a decent place for everybody to live and work in. But if over 30 year I have paid off my mortgage then surely it is up to me how financially this should be passed on, not the state.
3. No problem with means testing, it could be a good idea. The issue I have is that those that need it will have to pass through so many hoops it will be impossible to claim the benefit. That's my beef with this.
By the way wouldn't say that I am left winger, just want to live in a place were people are treated with a little more dignity and support for each other. I am not getting that vibe from the conservatives.
I'm not on my own in thinking that Tory welfare policy is a bad idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot)
-
On the more minor subject of things like means testing the fuel allowance, again I don't understand how a left-winger would argue that it makes sense for my mum and dad get a fuel allowance to heat their huge, posh houses courtesy of the state? Unless of course it's a logistical thing in that doing the means testing costs as much as just sending out the money to everyone... although at least then it provides jobs at the expense of the rich so actually even then it could be considered advantageous from a redistribution of wealth point of view.
One of the main arguments in favour of universal rather than means tested benefits is that it gives everyone including middle classes a sense of benefitting from the welfare state, rather than a situation where people with high incomes paying income tax but not getting any direct benefit end up feeling like they are subsidising a group who are different from them whether deserving or undeserving doesn't really matter.
-
As soon as some journo does a breakdown of how the care system works now and how the proposals will make it difference could somebody post a link? As I try and think about it it's making me realise that I'm starting from a point of very little knowledge.
-
Looks like the wheels on the bus might be about to fall off :icon_321:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/video-protestors-threaten-to-disrupt-tory-manifesto-launch-in-halifax-1-8549761 (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/video-protestors-threaten-to-disrupt-tory-manifesto-launch-in-halifax-1-8549761)
-
Anyone spot the voter suppression bit in the Tory manifesto? Clearly this is going to adversely impact on the labour vote more than the tory vote, funny that. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-general-election-2017-voter-id-laws-racist-voters-poll-latest-a7742666.html?cmpid=facebook-post
-
1. Is it though abarro, is it unsustainable, I can speak for myself, never claimed any benefits, in full time work, have no kids, apart from the occasional visit to the doctor, I don't think I am too reliant on the state for handouts. I would expect having worked hard to be able to retire with grace rather than constantly having to mind the pennies in case I fall ill. A cap on contributions seems fair.
If we currently can't afford it then yes, it's unsustainable. I get the distinct impression that we currently can't afford to continue to have social care and the nhs provided free at current (or ideally improved) levels without raising money from somewhere. My current view is that this doesn't necessarily seem like a bad way to go about raising that money. How much money you've put in or taken out of the system seems irrelevant: This argument seems to be "I don't use the state now so I want the money I've paid in back out later". That's not really how I understand the welfare state, nor the general concept of taxation and national insurance, to be supposed to operate. The point of an insurance program is surely basically that the majority will put in more than they take out and the few who require it will take out far more than they put in. If you think that you're owed more out in old age than those who've been reliant on the state in earlier life then I really don't understand how you're not fundamentally aligned with Conservative ideology.
A cap still exists under this policy, just a cap that works by reducing everyone to the same finishing level rather than everyone paying the same total amount. A cap on contributions is thus more 'fair' from a conservative viewpoint than a bottom point of assets acting as the 'cap', but in many ways is less fair since the millionaire and the man with very little pay the same. It's basically only fair in the same way that a flat rate of taxation is fair surely? (or not even a flat rate but a flat fee)
2. There in lies the problem it is a double tax, inheritance tax plus death (care) tax. I don't mind paying more of my working wages to create a decent place for everybody to live and work in. But if over 30 year I have paid off my mortgage then surely it is up to me how financially this should be passed on, not the state.
Ironically, your argument strikes me as basically the natural Conservative argument relating to why inheritance tax should be lower rather than higher. Or, for that matter, why taxation should be lower rather than higher full stop: "It's my money, I earned [or inherited!] it, so I should be able to spend it how I choose". On the preferable form of taxation we fundamentally disagree I think - I would view raising increased funds for social care through inheritance tax rises (of which this seems to be a bastardised version) as preferable to raising it through working age taxes. Perhaps that's just self-serving in that I'd rather have the cash now than when I'm dead, but it also seems likely to be advantageous from a meritocracy and wealth-redistribution/social mobility point of view. Again, a simple increase in inheritance tax would seem fairer. (I'm open to economic/social arguments about the merits/issues of having a system that could incentivise people spending more during their lifetime as the probability of handing it on to your children is decreased due to higher inheritance tax/this proposal.)
3. No problem with means testing, it could be a good idea. The issue I have is that those that need it will have to pass through so many hoops it will be impossible to claim the benefit. That's my beef with this.
Perhaps its naive of me, but I was thinking about policies themselves, rather than their implementation.
-
Perhaps its naive of me, but I was thinking about policies themselves, rather than their implementation.
[/quote]
It may well be naive, knowing the tories! I suspect there is a lot hiding in the implementation.
I'll come clean up and admit I haven't read the manifesto wording, so this is just my initial take based on headlines and I'm happy to be corrected by a more considered view! RE social care the policy on the face of it does seem "sort of" progressive i.e. someone with a million quid in assets could see that "taxed" at up to 90% if they live long enough whilst also needing care, whereas someone with 100K would be "taxed" at 0%. However if you consider the implementation I can see two problems:
1. Those with higher assets wishing to avoid this tax may be able to via behavioural changes e.g. putting wealth in trusts, gifting to children, or simply just cashing in and spending all of it leaving the state to pay for care. These are the usual IHT skirting methods and so may have been closed off so I could be wrong, although as far as I'm aware they still exist for IHT and have done for ages so I would expect they do here. Spending it all in this case has an element of "dodging" that it doesn't for IHT as there is still an ongoing cost to the state not present when someone dies. These are the standard tory arguments against labour tax plans so I don't see why they shouldn't apply here. Following on from this, if this does cause a shortfall in expected receipts what is the action plan? Find the money elsewhere or reduce care levels? Has this been covered in manifesto (I will try and read it later).
2. How is this money going to be released? Two separate considerations - first, for e.g. if your house is 100K and you have 100K in bank when you need first need care is 100K the amount you are liable for? Who assesses this? What is to stop you just spending the liquid 100K? Obviously you would still have then have 100K in assets but these may be illiquid - do the bailiffs come round? Could you "hide" it offshore?
Second, simple case of someone in a 200K home, no other assets. They are liable for 100K max care costs. Lets say that they use this. What is the mechanism for doing so? There will have to be a way of releasing equity from the home. Is this done via a government entity or via a private company? If private, what interest are they charging? Appears to be a route for profits to be diverted to private companies. And what is the position of the heirs when they own 50% of a house with a finance company upon their spouse / parent's death? Again may be in manifesto which I will try to read later but I'm interested to hear what people think.
-
Not entirely sure of mechanism but I've heard talk of 'deferred payments' and the Tories are saying you won't have to sell your house when you are alive. So my understanding is you don't pay upfront but you do have to sell your house/release equity somehow once you are dead.
-
Isn't selling your house while dead going to be the last thing a recently-departed corpse is going to want to do? It's bad enough when you're alive.
-
Not entirely sure of mechanism but I've heard talk of 'deferred payments' and the Tories are saying you won't have to sell your house when you are alive. So my understanding is you don't pay upfront but you do have to sell your house/release equity somehow once you are dead.
Interesting. So you pay after care has ended (death)? In that case, presuming all liable wealth is tied up in the house - who values this and when? Do you get a total bill for social care at death and then have to wind up the estate (inc. selling house) so you can see what your financial position is? If house values plummet then the state loses money - have they costed this? Also what is to stop heirs selling the house to a "friend" at way below market rate to avoid all costs then buying it back at a slight premium (the "friend's" cut) and retaining all the value with nothing for the state?
In the case where you release equity, who values the house? If its a private firm then clearly they are incentivised to undervalue the home thus cheating both the state and heirs of proper value. The only counter I can see to that is if independent valuation is required, then the firm will only buy at a discount thus diverting money theoretically earmarked for care costs to the private finance provider. What is this discount and who polices it? And in the case of a >200K house as only asset to cover a large care bill, the equity provider will then own >50% of the house. Again, where does this leave the heir? I presume they will receive a "friendly offer" to buy their share out by the selfsame equity firm who will then recycle the whole house for sale at profit or added to the stock of private rented homes? God I'm cynical!
-
For sure the mechanism is a tricksy one.. my initial thinking that it sounds like a non-too-hideous plan is based on a presumption that the mechanism is applied in a reasonable manner, e.g. the state effectively becomes the primary payee in your will, with your estate being used to settle the balance either until it is paid of until £100,000 after your death..
Also what is to stop heirs selling the house to a "friend" at way below market rate to avoid all costs then buying it back at a slight premium (the "friend's" cut) and retaining all the value with nothing for the state?
Pretty sure selling at below market value to those you're connected with is already banned due to implications on avoiding things like stamp duty on 2nd homes, inheritance tax etc.
-
For sure the mechanism is a tricksy one.. my initial thinking that it sounds like a non-too-hideous plan is based on a presumption that the mechanism is applied in a reasonable manner, e.g. the state effectively becomes the primary payee in your will, with your estate being used to settle the balance either until it is paid of until £100,000 after your death..
Interesting that you would presume that the mechanism would be reasonable! I would prefer to suspect not until evidence to contrary. Like I say I will try to read manifesto and clarify. Your basic assumption stated above still raises the question for me of when the "valuation" of assets is done. If at death then what is stopping £1million in cash suddenly becoming £1million worth of art while mum / dad is on their deathbed, which is then bequeathed to heirs - do the bailiffs appear? Or are assets of this type not included? If not then that is an obvious flaw RE cash and wealth will be passed down and not diverted to state. And my query over who values the house at death and what mechanisms are in place to prevent private equity vultures taking profitable advantage of someone's death still stands.
Also what is to stop heirs selling the house to a "friend" at way below market rate to avoid all costs then buying it back at a slight premium (the "friend's" cut) and retaining all the value with nothing for the state?
Pretty sure selling at below market value to those you're connected with is already banned due to implications on avoiding things like stamp duty on 2nd homes, inheritance tax etc.
I have no doubt you are right. Though it "being banned" and it not actually happening in practice I would want to see some evidence on before slapping Theresa on the back!
-
Following on from the first part of my last post, can I summarise that theory (which is all it is) as "if you are rich in cash you and your heirs are fine, if you only own a house you're fucked"?
-
For sure the mechanism is a tricksy one.. my initial thinking that it sounds like a non-too-hideous plan is based on a presumption that the mechanism is applied in a reasonable manner, e.g. the state effectively becomes the primary payee in your will, with your estate being used to settle the balance either until it is paid of until £100,000 after your death..
The general principle of paying for late life social care out of some sort of inheritance tax (though the tories would deny that it's this of course) is something I would probably support but this seems badly thought out and makes no real attempt to resolve real problems people have with the inability to have any certainty around social care costs. It just leaves the payment of of potentially very significant costs as a reverse lottery on those who are unlucky enough to llive with longer periods of ill-health at the end of there life.
The market has failed to find a mechanism to deal with the issues of spiraling social care costs and it seems like something the government should be involved with . Andy Burnham suggestion of a 10% inheritance tax levy on all estates to pay for everyone's late life care seems to be a much better option, providing the type of risk pooling which is a much better way to deal with these sort of issues, particularly since there's very little individuals can do to impact there personal likelihood of incurring these costs (outside of big increase in one way easyjet flights to Switzerland!). But of course this suggestion was slammed by the right wing press as a 'death tax'!
-
The main difference that (I think) everyone has missed - is that this means that care at home is now means tested via this new method. Before it was just if you had to move out to a home etc.. As c.75% of old people receiving some sort of care are having this in their own home it potentially impacts a lot of people.
Also, previously you had to have < £32k in savings/income to receive help - now its < £100k in assets. As the average house price is now >£200k.
-
Also what is to stop heirs selling the house to a "friend" at way below market rate to avoid all costs then buying it back at a slight premium (the "friend's" cut) and retaining all the value with nothing for the state?
Even now, all across the land, new Limited companies for this very purpose are speculatively being registered. Well they do say that the Tories are good for those with an entrepreneurial spirit!
The main difference that (I think) everyone has missed - is that this means that care at home is now means tested via this new method. Before it was just if you had to move out to a home etc.. As c.75% of old people receiving some sort of care are having this in their own home it potentially impacts a lot of people.
Also, previously you had to have < £32k in savings/income to receive help - now its < £100k in assets. As the average house price is now >£200k.
This. We can't really understand this policy unless we understand how the current system works and how this changes it. What is the mechanism for payment and when is payment taken? There is a difference between nursing care and social care. Right now you pay in cash and you pay up front I believe. More than that, I don't know, but I'd like to know. However I don't have time to go deep diving through .gov pages, hence my interest in seeing a good impartial (is that really too much to ask?!) breakdown in the news.
-
I've spoken to a few retired people recently who have sold their homes, gone into private rented and then applied for (and got) council homes - with the intention of enjoying their wealth (travelling etc), safe in the knowledge that if they spend up, they will still have a home where rent will be affordable (even on only state pension, pension credits, housing benefit). Looking like a smart move
-
For sure the mechanism is a tricksy one.. my initial thinking that it sounds like a non-too-hideous plan is based on a presumption that the mechanism is applied in a reasonable manner, e.g. the state effectively becomes the primary payee in your will, with your estate being used to settle the balance either until it is paid of until £100,000 after your death..
The general principle of paying for late life social care out of some sort of inheritance tax (though the tories would deny that it's this of course) is something I would probably support but this seems badly thought out and makes no real attempt to resolve real problems people have with the inability to have any certainty around social care costs. It just leaves the payment of of potentially very significant costs as a reverse lottery on those who are unlucky enough to llive with longer periods of ill-health at the end of there life.
The market has failed to find a mechanism to deal with the issues of spiraling social care costs and it seems like something the government should be involved with . Andy Burnham suggestion of a 10% inheritance tax levy on all estates to pay for everyone's late life care seems to be a much better option, providing the type of risk pooling which is a much better way to deal with these sort of issues, particularly since there's very little individuals can do to impact there personal likelihood of incurring these costs (outside of big increase in one way easyjet flights to Switzerland!). But of course this suggestion was slammed by the right wing press as a 'death tax'!
I was just starting to consider the larger “ideological” aspects (as opposed to the implementation) of this policy so Ian your post is timely, and on first pass I agree with it.
Social care is arguably an extension / natural partner of NHS services. Separating it out both in practice (on the ground) and financially (how it is funded) seems on the face of it illogical and for me requires an explanation of the reason. Basically if you get unfortunate enough to get ill you are protected by the universally funded free at point of use NHS. If you get old which you definitely will then you get rinsed, with echoes of how the American system works – the amount you get rinsed depends on a) how much you’re worth, and b) how old you are (i.e. how much care you need). As Ian says the inequality is startling – you could live a long time, be a millionaire, not need care then drop dead one day and you’re sorted (or rather your heirs are). Or you could be someone who has worked hard all their life on a basic wage, paid off a mortgage, accrued a huge value increase in your home (by default not design) meaning your small 2 up 2 down is now worth >100K, then get old and watch a chunk of your only asset, your house, which under current IHT only regime would go solely to your heir, end up in the hands of a private equity firm. You can see how this looks unfair. It may also lead to unintended social consequences e.g. increased suicides amongst old people, and families avoiding care costs by taking it on themselves when not fully equipped to deal with their relative’s needs.
To my mind on first impressions a better solution would be to make social care a provision of a new government service equivalent to the NHS, or a subsidiary of the NHS. Reasons against?
Finally I think the fact that this has come up in the tory manifesto shows two things politically – first that Corbyn’s attacks on this in numerous PMQ’s have actually hit home and prompted some action. Granted for those not enamoured of Corbyn this may well have happened in a different universe under a different leader, so lets just chalk it up as a labour success. Secondly Theresa May seems to be saying to a large section of her core vote – “you’re next”. Knowing they will still vote for her. Which they will. The mind boggles.
-
It is great to think about things a bit more deeply.
Had a quick tinty search abarro and found this, from the tory graph earlier this year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/)
You stated that paying for care using your house as a back stop would help with redistribution.
Unfortunately this isn't the case and may depend on where you live.
So somebody down south will possibly have higher care costs, than somebody up north.
But those down south will be better off as the cost of care as a percentage of their property is smaller.
So yes it might raise money, is it fair no, does it help with redistribution no.
*Caveat these are average costs, some people will obviously need more/less care.
Yes as a country we need to pay our way collectively to maintain the services that we often take for granted.
You do this through fair taxation making sure everybody pays, why not start with the tax dodgers/avoiders/big companies rather than the little man on the street.
The government can then come calling me once they have sorted this area of the stable out.
I like the double speak though abarro, if I support the plans then I am a Tory, if I am against the plans then I have a Tory outlook?
-
The main difference that (I think) everyone has missed - is that this means that care at home is now means tested via this new method. Before it was just if you had to move out to a home etc.. As c.75% of old people receiving some sort of care are having this in their own home it potentially impacts a lot of people.
Also, previously you had to have < £32k in savings/income to receive help - now its < £100k in assets. As the average house price is now >£200k.
This. We can't really understand this policy unless we understand how the current system works and how this changes it. What is the mechanism for payment and when is payment taken? There is a difference between nursing care and social care. Right now you pay in cash and you pay up front I believe. More than that, I don't know, but I'd like to know. However I don't have time to go deep diving through .gov pages, hence my interest in seeing a good impartial (is that really too much to ask?!) breakdown in the news.
It's actually £23,500 in savings for care at home. My father in law is self-funded for his care at home for this reason and as his health deteriorates costs are increasing - he currently covers it out of his police and state pension but the uncertainty is not helpful. If he moves into care home then costs will increase massively and he may need to sell his house depending on timescales.
As you say more details would be needed to better understand what this policy would mean but to me even giving it the benefit of the doubt doesn't seem to attempt to resolve the core issues around long term old age care.
-
Sorry - got 32 and 23 mixed up.
-
I am really sorry to hear this Ian, it is a really sad state of affairs.
-
i am going to re post my last contribution as I don't know if it sent properly apologies in advance if it has.
It is great to think about things a bit more deeply.
Had a quick tinty search abarro and found this, from the tory graph earlier this year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/)
You stated that paying for care using your house as a back stop would help with redistribution.
Unfortunately this isn't the case and may depend on where you live.
So somebody down south will possibly have higher care costs, than somebody up north.
But those down south will be better off as the cost of care as a percentage of their property is smaller.
So yes it might raise money, is it fair no, does it help with redistribution no.
*Caveat these are average costs, some people will obviously need more/less care.
Yes as a country we need to pay our way collectively to maintain the services that we often take for granted.
You do this through fair taxation making sure everybody pays, why not start with the tax dodgers/avoiders/big companies rather than the little man on the street.
The government can then come calling me once they have sorted this area of the stable out.
I like the double speak though abarro, if I support the plans then I am a Tory, if I am against the plans then I have a Tory outlook?
-
The current system is exactly as IanP describes. My mother is currently in a nursing home and we have had to go through finding out all about care costs and how things work.
Currently if you are cared at home (most people) your house is not classified as an asset to be used in the calculations. In this case I found you have over £23,500 in assets in the bank or shares then you pay for your care until you reduce these to £23,500 and then social services do a financial assessment.
If you are in a nursing home, your house is included in the asset calculation. I believe the exception isn't if your spouse or dependent children are still living at home. So in this case it is most likely that at some point you will need to sell your house to funding the care (we almost certainly will at some point in the next 12mths). As i understand it the council probably won't force you to do this for quite a while and prefer to put a charge against the value of the house instead.
As a self funder, nursing home fees are approximately £1000 per week. So it doesn't take long before a large amount of most people's assets are gone. If the council pays they set a limit of about £500 that they will pay per week, which I believe (according to a documentary on radio4) is below the actual break even cost and so nursing homes cross subsidise the council funded patients with the private self funders.
I think a few people have mentioned lots of schemes to avoid these care costs. I looked into this a fair bit as we would have liked to try and save some of her assets (mainly greed on my part). Unfortunately the law has thought about this a fair bit and is pretty clear that this treated a son "deliberate deprivation of assets. If you have a reasonable idea that you might need care in the foreseeable future then you can not dispose of your assets to avoid these care costs. For example if you are told that you have severe heart failure, then you can't put your house or assets in a trust or gift them to your children etc. If this happens the council has the power to demand them back. There is also no seven year limitation as with inheritance tax.
The only way to avoid these care costs is to have put everything in trust or given it all to your children whilst you are fit and healthy.
Sorry if this is all a bit too much detail but thought it might be useful in the discussion to know exactly how things work at present.
Dave
-
personally I think that somehow we need to find a way to pay for the care costs that seem fairly likely at the end of life. On a personal note it would be great if we could avoid all the care costs for my mother and thus be able to inherit her house and the cash in her bank. However I am not sure that this is fair on others in society as a whole, by doing that we would basically be asking others in society to pay for her care costs whilst we as a family avoid that cost and then benefit from inheritance upon her death. Yes from my own perspective currently that seems great but I don't think I feel so generous when it comes to my own taxation being used to fund someone's care and their family then inheriting the estate when that person dies.
As to capping care costs and making sure that you are left with at least £100,000 left in assets. This is great in terms of passing on wealth down the family line but again I can't help but feel it is likely to pass a large amount of care costs onto the wider society. At the end of the day someone has to pay for the costs of care...
-
https://twitter.com/withorpe/status/865465756393156608
-
personally I think that somehow we need to find a way to pay for the care costs that seem fairly likely at the end of life. On a personal note it would be great if we could avoid all the care costs for my mother and thus be able to inherit her house and the cash in her bank. However I am not sure that this is fair on others in society as a whole, by doing that we would basically be asking others in society to pay for her care costs whilst we as a family avoid that cost and then benefit from inheritance upon her death. Yes from my own perspective currently that seems great but I don't think I feel so generous when it comes to my own taxation being used to fund someone's care and their family then inheriting the estate when that person dies.
As to capping care costs and making sure that you are left with at least £100,000 left in assets. This is great in terms of passing on wealth down the family line but again I can't help but feel it is likely to pass a large amount of care costs onto the wider society. At the end of the day someone has to pay for the costs of care...
I agree with abarro's take on this. In theory it's a big step in a progressive direction that taxes the richest most highly and allows a £100k chunk to remain untaxed. Though I'd go further. I said a couple of years ago somewhere on here that the fairest tax system I can think of is to have extremely low income tax - to encourage industrious creators of wealth to create wealth for us all while they're alive; and extremely high inheritance tax - to discourage generational wealth-building and start to re-balance the wealth inequality which has built up in this country over hundreds of years.
A 10% income tax rate and a 80-90% inheritance tax rate on assets greater than, say for e.g., £500,000 (with current loopholes closed) would do a lot to help build a more equitable society. Details of implementation obviously are key. The implementation argument can be leveled at all parties, not just conservative. Just that the cons 'are' going to be implementing policies and Labour/Lib Dems aren't - anytime soon - until they get their shit together.
My self-made millionaire mate strongly disagrees, funnily enough, with my notion that he shouldn't be allowed to pass down millions to each of his daughters. Self-protection of genes versus greater good of society..
-
personally I think that somehow we need to find a way to pay for the care costs that seem fairly likely at the end of life. On a personal note it would be great if we could avoid all the care costs for my mother and thus be able to inherit her house and the cash in her bank. However I am not sure that this is fair on others in society as a whole, by doing that we would basically be asking others in society to pay for her care costs whilst we as a family avoid that cost and then benefit from inheritance upon her death. Yes from my own perspective currently that seems great but I don't think I feel so generous when it comes to my own taxation being used to fund someone's care and their family then inheriting the estate when that person dies.
As to capping care costs and making sure that you are left with at least £100,000 left in assets. This is great in terms of passing on wealth down the family line but again I can't help but feel it is likely to pass a large amount of care costs onto the wider society. At the end of the day someone has to pay for the costs of care...
I agree with abarro's take on this. In theory it's a big step in a progressive direction that taxes the richest most highly and allows a £100k chunk to remain untaxed. Though I'd go further. I said a couple of years ago somewhere on here that the fairest tax system I can think of is to have extremely low income tax - to encourage industrious creators of wealth to create wealth for us all while they're alive; and extremely high inheritance tax - to discourage generational wealth-building and start to re-balance the wealth inequality which has built up in this country over hundreds of years.
A 10% income tax rate and a 80-90% inheritance tax rate on assets greater than, say for e.g., £500,000 (with current loopholes closed) would do a lot to help build a more equitable society. Details of implementation obviously are key. The implementation argument can be leveled at all parties, not just conservative. Just that the cons 'are' going to be implementing policies and Labour/Lib Dems aren't - anytime soon - until they get their shit together.
My self-made millionaire mate strongly disagrees, funnily enough, with my notion that he shouldn't be allowed to pass down millions to each of his daughters. Self-protection of genes versus greater good of society..
Yup - thats the argument that Inheritance tax is the best social 'leveller' - its not too dissimilar from the state owning everything ideas of communism (gentle troll... :) )
The pensioners are the elephant in the economic room... they take the largest slice out of the benefit budget - but have been protected from any austerity as they mostly vote Tory (and Brexit - but I won't mix apples and oranges etc.. :) ). If we hadn't had pension 'triple lock' or pensions linked to RPI instead of inflation etc.. then the chancellor would have had quite alot more money to play with over the last 7 years.. maybe we wouldnt have such a growing deficit either...
So, its quite brave of May (and probably Hammond) to take on the grey vote in this way - it actually reminds me of how they wanted to up NI on self employed people earlier in the year but that was barracked down..
Its a strange May steer on this Tory party.. quite alot of state intervention (not a typical Tory tactic) and some almost socialist ideas. But still with the usual swivel headed loon policies on immigration and fox hunting for example.
-
Yup - thats the argument that Inheritance tax is the best social 'leveller' - its not too dissimilar from the state owning everything ideas of communism (gentle troll... :) )
Not much of a troll to me, I'm quite alright with the idea of society - or community - taking in death whatever I've made in life, leaving enough of a bunch of feathers for offspring to comfortise their nest. That's more than many have..
I'm of the mindset that nobody is born more deserving than anyone else and no-one is inherently more superior. Until, practically speaking, they clearly *are*. So much is down to who you're born to. You could argue some actually are more deserving than others, depending which point in life you start from. But whichever point you start from it seems to me we've reached a stage where 'wealth' - above a certain level - has become a poor indicator of 'worthiness'. Maybe it's the soldier in me: ultimately we're all in the same mud-filled trench facing the same enemies of illness, aging and death and 'you' really aren't anything special (whatever you believe).
One of my biggest concerns* with the way the UK is today (you can extrapolate this worldwide) is that where before perhaps only the wealthiest used to, now even many of the middle-class - in the face of greater competition for resources perhaps - seem to genuinely believe and be acting in ways that suggest they are superior and more deserving than the poorest; but more than that they're actually preying on the poorest, in ways that seem regressive, almost medieval.
So yeah I'd happily live in a system that broke apart the vice-grip of family wealth and privilege and shook the tree - the first act in that system would be to strip the royals and old aristocratic families of their land and assets, above a nominal value, and bequeath it to respective local councils... or 'communes' as they'd be in my anarchist version of the UK :)
Then impose a 90% death tax above half a mill, maybe less, and reduce taxes on the living to a minimum. It'll never happen but I can dream of the re-balancing of society and the resultant change of emphasis in how we all live that'd result.
* which doesn't keep me awake at night for one minute nor does it compel me to do much about it during the day - I don't care *that* much.
-
Strong and stable u-turns. Corbyn can't win against that.
Can he?
-
So no change, death tax on the cards, May just needs to tinker with admin side of things and everything will be fine. What could possibly go wrong. You only need to pay the Tories once you've popped it.
Watched the clip below and the Neil interview, st Teresa is definitely feeling the heat. About fucking time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RgGDikcjRxI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RgGDikcjRxI)
Jezzer sounds almost Churchillian in comparison
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDmskeGARk (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDmskeGARk)
Strong n stable my arse.
-
Jeremy f Deller m, I presume?
-
Would it be too cynical to suggest that the dementia tax is a just backhanded way to open up more public money for private health care providers, under the guise of socialism?
It's very much an "upper middle class" tax, as the true wealthy will have it all safe and secure in trust funds, family businesses and other "tax efficient" ways.
-
The more real (and equally cynical) reason might be that finance companies will benefit from selling 'capital release' plans/schemes/mortgages to oaps needing the £££ for care.
I saw one tweet that suggested that Mays husband was involved in selling such packages...
-
I personally think that (with a number of stipulations listed below)this policy is one of the most radical ideas that has been put forward by either side in the whole election so far and actually more socialist than a lot of the lefts ideas.
I think that those who can afford to pay for there own care in old age should have to. It seems utterly absurd that you should rely on the government to pay for it all whilst you own assets worth far in excess of these costs; assets that then just get passed on to your next of kin after death with a minimum amount of tax. You might shout that you have already paid your dues to build that asset but your kids have not and pretty much get it gifted to them.
The issues i have though are in the detail.
How will it be funded- This should not allow any private companies to profit. No annuity type mechanisms.
It should not be used to reduce the spend on social care - The pot should remain the same but this policy should reduce the amount sharing the pot therefore increasing the standards of care for those unable to fund themselves.
The 100k figure needs to be looked at- Where does this sit in relation to the average estate value? It seems a reasonable sum to leave to my kids to me but some might disagree.
The loop holes for avoiding this need to be sorted- its presently so easy to avoid inheritance tax its a joke.
I find it amazing that Labour appear to be against the idea as it seems to be very much set up to take from the wealthy and help the not.
This is the 1st policy from either side that has really got to the problems that we face with long term care. Most of the other stuff you hear to much about such as re nationalisation of everything, fox hunting and free school lunches are just irrelevant in the bigger picture yet seem to clog up 99% of the social media space.
Its a brave effort from May as it really hits at the heart of most of her supporters. Its up to labour to now scrutinise the policy and ask the right questions.
I am not a Corbyn fan at all but can thank him that due to how shit the opposition has got its actually allowed the Torys to risk throwing something out there that needs to be done but will not be liked by their supporters, something that would not have happened if the polls were closer. I also find it interesting that a Tory policy that definitely sits to the left of their others has had a bigger effect on labours standing in the polls that all of there own put together.
-
I personally think that (with a number of stipulations listed below)this policy is one of the most radical ideas that has been put forward by either side in the whole election so far and actually more socialist than a lot of the lefts ideas.
I think that those who can afford to pay for there own care in old age should have to. It seems utterly absurd that you should rely on the government to pay for it all whilst you own assets worth far in excess of these costs; assets that then just get passed on to your next of kin after death with a minimum amount of tax. You might shout that you have already paid your dues to build that asset but your kids have not and pretty much get it gifted to them.
The issues i have though are in the detail.
How will it be funded- This should not allow any private companies to profit. No annuity type mechanisms.
It should not be used to reduce the spend on social care - The pot should remain the same but this policy should reduce the amount sharing the pot therefore increasing the standards of care for those unable to fund themselves.
The 100k figure needs to be looked at- Where does this sit in relation to the average estate value? It seems a reasonable sum to leave to my kids to me but some might disagree.
The loop holes for avoiding this need to be sorted- its presently so easy to avoid inheritance tax its a joke.
I find it amazing that Labour appear to be against the idea as it seems to be very much set up to take from the wealthy and help the not.
This is the 1st policy from either side that has really got to the problems that we face with long term care. Most of the other stuff you hear to much about such as re nationalisation of everything, fox hunting and free school lunches are just irrelevant in the bigger picture yet seem to clog up 99% of the social media space.
Its a brave effort from May as it really hits at the heart of most of her supporters. Its up to labour to now scrutinise the policy and ask the right questions.
I am not a Corbyn fan at all but can thank him that due to how shit the opposition has got its actually allowed the Torys to risk throwing something out there that needs to be done but will not be liked by their supporters, something that would not have happened if the polls were closer. I also find it interesting that a Tory policy that definitely sits to the left of their others has had a bigger effect on labours standing in the polls that all of there own put together.
It seems more likely to me that it will have the most impact on people who own their own houses, but have no other assets. So that's the poorer end of society? Especially considering the way the housing market has gone crazy over the last 20 years?
Not saying it's a bad policy (I am undecided) and something needs doing, but I think an increase in inheritance tax and closure of the loopholes there would have probably been fairer?
Additionally, right to die laws need to come with it.
-
How on earth would owning your own home put you in the poorer end of society.
-
How on earth would owning your own home put you in the poorer end of society.
Our mental property market leaves plenty of people asset rich but cash poor, home ownership is very high in the generation currently needing this kind of care (see http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/).
I'm not too keen to get dragged into this debate but I feel that the current proposal is very crude and would be easily avoidable much in the same way as inheritance tax. We need to have this discussion for sure but this is a shit solution. You don't lose out financially by being unlucky and needing lots of NHS services. This proposal doesn't pool risk in the same way which I think is why it has been termed "dementia tax" etc.
-
How on earth would owning your own home put you in the poorer end of society.
I think what creedence may mean (though I'm sure they can speak for themselves!) is that if you have a house but no other assets then you are going to lose more than someone with the same amount in assets. This is because either a) those assets will get spent / moved sideways and hidden from the tax man or b) if they take 50% of your assets you still have 50% left and disposable. If they take 50% of your home you're in hock to the private equity firm who owns the other half. You may also owe more in interest and fees for arrangement of the equity release product. And god knows what happens if they own >50%? The perception is that people at the poorer end of the inheritance scale will be in this position i.e. some middle class old dear who has paid off their mortgage over their working life, vs someone with a mansion house, shares, cash etc etc.
Basically if you are in the demographic of passing on stuff but still liable for care costs then the likelihood is that the folk at the poorer end will just have a house worth e.g. £200K. Those at the higher end will be in £1million house with bags of cash. £150K care costs will have a proportionally bigger impact on the former.
What you refer to i.e. the "real" poor end of society won't be liable for care costs at all as they won't have any of these assets.
-
As I stated earlier in the thread I'm generally in favor of using what would be inherited wealth to assist in paying the costs of longer term care particularly as the impact of an ageing population continues to increase.
However the proposed policy (and you comments) make no attempt to resolve the issue around fairness and winner vs losers in the lottery of old age health. Normally these sort of uncontrollable risks can be managed via insurance but the market doesn't appear able to help in this case and anyway the UK (sensibly in my opinion) has chosen to generally pool healthcare risk via the state rather than the insurance market. Wouldn't a inheritance based tax (possible allocated specifically to long term care costs) be a much better way to deal with this?
-
I think the whole proposal is a bit crude hence why i put my stipulations but think the general idea is good.
I am also not suggesting that this replaces inheritance tax, far from it i am all for increasing that as well.
-
It seems utterly absurd that you should rely on the government to pay for it all whilst you own assets worth far in excess of these costs; assets that then just get passed on to your next of kin after death with a minimum amount of tax.
All true but each persons circumstances will be different, more care/less care depending on illness.
I might be suddenly struck down in old age by a heart attack and leave behind all my inheritance.
I might develop dementia and leave been 100k, having eaten through any savings/money that remains within the property.
So it isn't fair it becomes a lottery and down to luck.
The telegraph stats about care home costs - it is strange that this article appeared earlier this year. I think that this has been in the pipeline for a while.
The article clearly states that how much this "tax" or cost will largely depended on where you live and the value of your property.
Those with most expensive properties it will affect the least.
As others have mentioned fairer to increase inheritance tax another 5-10% maybe more and then collectively we will have all paid for the care that we all need.
Better to collectively share the burden rather than place in some cases substantial costs on the shoulders of individuals who simply become ill.
-
I think the whole proposal is a bit crude hence why i put my stipulations but think the general idea is good.
I am also not suggesting that this replaces inheritance tax, far from it i am all for increasing that as well.
Currently inheritance tax only kicks in at £1 million (40% rate) so no suggestion that this would replace it. Don't have any idea how the numbers work but a low level of inheritance tax of say 10-20% on amounts above say £50,000 could raise a lot of money for long term care - the British seem to get very worked up about 'death tax' but a tax a relative low rate wouldn't destroy peoples inheritance while providing a fair way to share the risk we all have.
-
What is Labour's policy for funding social care in old age?
-
Currently inheritance tax only kicks in at £1 million (40% rate)
No, £325K
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/overview
-
Always been amazed by how few pay inheritance tax (2.5-7% depending on year). Clearly a) most people never amass that much, and b) as gme said, it's very easy to avoid by those who do.
-
No, £325K
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/overview
Apologies, it's all pretty complicated and I'm not an expert. The £325k is per person and can be passed on to spouse (making 650k).
Conservative plans also include an additional family home allowance which effectively increases the tax free amount up to £1 milliion for a couple, thought this started this year but looks like it is being phased in.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/a-guide-to-inheritance-tax
-
I think the proposal will not effect the majority of low earners as they will not have more the 100k to pass on, nor will it effect the wealthy as they are more than likely to pay for private care and medical cover outside of the NHS so in essence are already doing whats been proposed.
Its the large section of middle class Britain that will have to pay up and i think thats fair. This to me seems like the group who want the best of everything but dont want to pay for it. Want the rich to be taxed and the poor to have their benefits taken away.
Also the group who keep the Tories in power.
-
What is Labour's policy for funding social care in old age?
this is Labour's policy (http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-22/where-the-three-main-parties-stand-on-social-care-reform/):
Its party manifesto promises to increase social care budgets by £8 billion over the lifetime of the parliament, with £1 billion coming in the first year.
Labour also says it will lay the foundations for the creation of a National Care Service alongside the NHS and seek a consensus on how its £3 billion-a-year cost should be funded.
Potential options include through wealth taxes, employer contributions or a new social care levy.
Which doesn't sound to me like they have a clear plan other than 'throw more money at it, but we can't say exactly where the money will be sourced from but it could involve taxing your wealth or creating a new levy - for the over 65s perhaps?...so an 'age tax'? Fair enough, possibly, just pointing out.
As gme said (in a roundabout way) the Cons policy could have come from a Labour or Lib Dem party manifesto.
Also the way the media jumped on May changing tack to include a cap as 'weakness' - fair enough, it isn't a shining example of being resolute but adding the cap is hardly a policy 'U-turn' - whilst almost completely avoiding reporting the fact that by adding the cap it made it a better fairer policy! And something welcomed by all parties! It bugs me that the media are too interested in dramatising events and seemingly being heard for the sake of being heard; rather than reporting the often hidden facts in an impartial manner and letting people make up their own minds.
-
gme / petejh
Sorry to keep banging the same old drum but you haven't answered this yet - why do you think a policy that takes money only from those with the bad luck to need long term care is better than one which insures all against those costs via for example increased inheritance tax?
-
Who said I (we) think it is better? The question should be: why talk about 'using inheritance tax to pay for social care' as if it's Labour policy and thus a choice in this election, when it isn't?
The only point that matters - in this election - is: what choices are the parties offering? Are Labour offering to pay for social care by increasing inheritance tax? - no. And have they explained how to close the loopholes which 'disappears' so much inheritance tax - no.
So there's your choice for this election regards social care. Not a lot else matters practically.
Huff Post: (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inheritance-tax-left-out-of-labour-manifesto-2017-amid-worries-among-london-mps_uk_59157f27e4b0031e737cc4a9)
Radical plans to change inheritance tax have been left out of Labour’s manifesto amid warnings from London MPs that the move would cost them key seats in the capital.
A proposal to ‘soak the rich’ by slashing the tax-free allowance for family homes, and other ideas for lowering the threshold at which the ‘death tax’ is paid, have been mooted within the party in recent weeks.
But the policy was missing from the Labour manifesto and was not added at the final ‘Clause V’ meeting of senior MPs, members and trade unions that approved the policy programme on Thursday, HuffPost UK has been told.
-
gme / petejh
Sorry to keep banging the same old drum but you haven't answered this yet - why do you think a policy that takes money only from those with the bad luck to need long term care is better than one which insures all against those costs via for example increased inheritance tax?
My thoughts exactly, which ever way you look at it the death(dementia) tax it isn't fair.
It should be re branded the "death lottery tax."
The other issue is how such a policy will be implemented and you can imagine a few crooks will be offering to service care provision.
With regard to what's in the policies, I've not looked, but a while ago Andy Burnham mooted a 10% inhertance tax, flat rate.
I am sure at some point the issue will be tackled by all of the parties.
-
Yes, but what is Labour's alternative proposal? Do you even know?
-
Who said I (we) think it is better? The question should be: why talk about 'using inheritance tax to pay for social care' as if it's Labour policy and thus a choice in this election, when it isn't?
The only point that matters - in this election - is: what choices are the parties offering? Are Labour offering to pay for social care by increasing inheritance tax? - no. And have they explained how to close the loopholes which 'disappears' so much inheritance tax - no.
So there's your choice for this election regards social care. Not a lot else matters practically.
Labour aren't going to win so by you argument there's no choice at all and nothing matters. I think discussing what a really good policy to manage some of the big problems society in the future faces is always useful.
The conservative policy appears to have been pulled together without any thought to such an extent that they were backtracking within days. An while that backtrack does improve a badly thought out policy it is still has issues imo and the process of backtracking (together with the lack of any details on specifics) doesn't inspire confidence.
BTW argument that a having a cap isn't u-turn doesn't fit in with this from Jeremy Hunt:
'The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, was asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme if the policy was a rejection of both Dilnot’s cap and the £72,000 limit that was going to be put in place by the Conservatives under David Cameron.
“Yes, and not only are we dropping it but we are dropping it ahead of a general election and we’re being completely explicit in our manifesto that we’re dropping it,” said Hunt.'
-
BTW I don't consider myself a Labour supporter, actually feel like one of the disenfranchised middle, left behind by a Labour party tracking to the left with limited interest in actually running the country and a a conservative party seemingly moving strongly to the authoritarian right (and hoovering up UKIP voters as it goes)
-
Yes, but what is Labour's alternative proposal? Do you even know?
As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with petejh and think this one of the only positive things the Tories have done in my opinion. i don't believe it's the right way to fund/sort the social care issue* but it at least acknowledges the fact that it is a big issue now and only going to get worse. I had thought that with such a big majority, Mrs May had an opportunity to have a few policies that would be unpalatable to her voters but needed addressing. I didn't think she would but, on this occasion, she has gone out on a limb and been bizarrely shot down for it. I also had some sympathy with Hammond on the NI fiasco.
I've been criticising the Tories for attacking the Labour policies in the leaked manifesto without them having and policies of their own, just a pack of soundbite cards. Now, with the Tory manifesto out Labour are doing the same, criticising a policy with no solution of their own.
*As IanP points out, I don't believe we should have a system where healthcare through most of your life is funded by everyone but when it comes to social care it falls to the individual to finance it. Society should bear the cost of both health care through life and social care at the end of life. This should/could be done somehow via inheritance tax surely.
-
Interesting ideas on the death tax - and more harshly means testing the old on their care costs. That and the end of the pension triple lock is quite a risk by the Torys - as the Elderly are usually their core vote.
It's also quite a socialist idea - inheritance tax is often argues as being the most effective tool to redress wealth inequality (bought in after ww2 I think - and credited with long term rebalancing in the U.K. Thereafter). Making the elderly pay for their care - by taking capital out of their assets (house) is a very bold and surprising move.
I'm not planning to vote for her by the way - just some commentary.
-
Who said I (we) think it is better? The question should be: why talk about 'using inheritance tax to pay for social care' as if it's Labour policy and thus a choice in this election, when it isn't?
The only point that matters - in this election - is: what choices are the parties offering? Are Labour offering to pay for social care by increasing inheritance tax? - no. And have they explained how to close the loopholes which 'disappears' so much inheritance tax - no.
So there's your choice for this election regards social care. Not a lot else matters practically.
Labour aren't going to win so by you argument there's no choice at all and nothing matters. I think discussing what a really good policy to manage some of the big problems society in the future faces is always useful.
Yes it's useful.
But the discussion on this post isn't a general discussion, rather it's being held in the context of two major parties one offering something that's being shot down as 'unfair' and the other (Lab) not offering anything like what posters on here are saying would be a better alternative - yet that fact isn't being shot down. It comes across as simple prejudice against the policy - because cons came up with it -without much thought. Which isn't useful.
-
Ian
I agree that it seems unfair but at present we have a system that works if your ill, the NHS. It obviously needs to be better and is struggling itself but the social care side is a bit of a new kid on the block.
I dont have info to back it up without going to look but i would hazard a guess that people dont spend 10-15 years in an NHS hospital bed in the later part of there lives but they are spending that, and more, having daily care visits or in a care home. I also think that with an improved care system the length of stay for the elderly and thus the cost to the NHS would come down dramatically.
To put it more bluntly to get cancer or have a heart problem at 80 and you probably dont have long left. Get dementia and you might get to see a labour government again.
-
gme / petejh
Sorry to keep banging the same old drum but you haven't answered this yet - why do you think a policy that takes money only from those with the bad luck to need long term care is better than one which insures all against those costs via for example increased inheritance tax?
A few arguments that could be used:
Because unlike the NHS - which everyone will use in their life and thus everyone should pay for - not everyone will use social care. Many will die before needing it; many won't need it all in old age; and many will only need it for a very short time.
Because under this policy the ones paying for social care, to be blunt sorry, are at the neds of their time on this earth and so it could be said have less need of their wealth (£100k of which remains untouched to pass down remember) then the young need theirs. The young have their whole lives ahead of them, in which they can be accumulating their own wealth (to be used for social care in the distant future..) without the drag of an extra tax burden to pay for those at the end of their lives. And so on.
Because of the quirks of how the economy behaved in the last 20-30 years. I.e. the old are disproportionately wealthy compared to the young and middle-aged in terms of property wealth.
Also.. I hear a lot of people in favour of some kind of greater health care payment by smokers and clinically obese, to go toward their treatment costs on the NHS... And the NHS already puts these people lower down their priorities for treatment. It's not exactly the same idea but there are related themes here..
We also tax sugar, alcohol and tobacco because they cost the health service proportionally more to treat the effects of than a healthier choice of lifestyle. 'course you can say those are a choice, aging isn't a choice. Is addiction really a choice?
Not saying I fully agree, but they're valid arguments.
I guess a lot depends on how much relative value you place on the idea that everyone should share costs of all burdens on an economy, versus the idea that those who are the greatest burden on an economy should be responsible for paying a greater share of that burden.
Also, it's interesting to note those making calls for the 'richest' to pay a greater share of the tax burden for public services, but who are against this. In many ways that's exactly what this policy seems to be - a higher burden paid by the (asset) richest. Or is it only the 'rich' who are still working and look like they're rich - CEO's, financiers etc. (and who are so rich they will have private care at the end of their lives and thus not contribute to the burden) that should pay more?
-
We also tax sugar, alcohol and tobacco because they cost the health service proportionally more to treat the effects of than a healthier choice of lifestyle. 'course you can say those are a choice, aging isn't a choice. Is addiction really a choice?
Not saying I fully agree, but they're valid arguments.
I guess a lot depends on how much relative value you place on the idea that everyone should share costs of all burdens on an economy, versus the idea that those who are the greatest burden on an economy should be responsible for paying a greater share of that burden.
Was going to try to articulate a lot of what you have said here.
If we are talking welfare in old age, we need to also consider, smoking, alcohol, sugar.
Should those with illness related to over consumption of the above pay for their care?
Even though these products carry additional tax.
Arguments are really complex regarding addiction.
I feel that Cons welfare proposals are a slippery slope and will lead towards a private/insurance based health/welfare system.
I don't want to be a part of that.
The fairest system is that we all pay in fairly, we might not need to dip into the system, but in times of need it's there to help us all.
It comes across as simple prejudice against the policy - because cons came up with it -without much thought. Which isn't useful.
Please read this and tell me if you think that paying for care as proposed by the Cons is fair.
It's not simple prejudice, it's a shit policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/)
-
The whole point of the NHS is to provide the same service free of charge whenever needed no mattter
how old or how young
how rich or how poor
how privileged or how needy
how ill or how healthy
how much like a nun you live or how much of a caner you are etc...
Once you start 'means testing' (whether that be financial - or based on lifestyle choices) then this all starts to fall apart.
The "I've paid more tax for this so I deserve that - and you don't" attitude doesn't work with this system (I'm not accusing anyone here of thinking that - just making the point).
The 'means testing' we have in some places based on obesity, lifestyle choices is partly based on how it alters the likelihood of success of any treatment - but probably now forced by financial considerations.
-
The whole point of the NHS is to provide the same service free of charge whenever needed no mattter
how old or how young
how rich or how poor
how privileged or how needy
how ill or how healthy
how much like a nun you live or how much of a caner you are etc...
Once you start 'means testing' (whether that be financial - or based on lifestyle choices) then this all starts to fall apart.
The "I've paid more tax for this so I deserve that - and you don't" attitude doesn't work with this system (I'm not accusing anyone here of thinking that - just making the point).
The 'means testing' we have in some places based on obesity, lifestyle choices is partly based on how it alters the likelihood of success of any treatment - but probably now forced by financial considerations.
Completely agree Tomtom, but as I said, it's a slippery slope.
I am more than happy to pay in so that collectively we all get help when/if we need it.
I think the point we are all making is to prioritise how tax is spent.
Should we spend billions on Trident renewal, HS2, Heathrow runways etc. When many people relie on food banks, money should should be spent where it will do most good.
-
Please read this and tell me if you think that paying for care as proposed by the Cons is fair.
It's not simple prejudice, it's a shit policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/92000-average-cost-care-home-britains-costliest-regions/)
So what's your take away from that article? I don't see glaring unfairness.
Care costs in the most affluent areas are higher than in the least affluent. Average house prices in the most affluent areas are also higher but by a greater proportion than care costs are higher - that's a reflection of how messed-up and unbalanced our housing market has become.
Hence care costs in the most affluent areas are a smaller proportion of house value when compared to less affluent areas.
Bottom line - everyone keeps £100k of their housing wealth and pays for care above that (with a cap figure, not yet know). So the person in London could end up paying the full cost of their care - average cost £86,000 - and still be left with many hundreds of thousands pounds because their property is worth loads. The person in Wales could end up paying £20-30k care cost and be left with £100k.
In other words the person with 4x the housing wealth ends up potentially paying 4x the care cost. It's the principle a lot of people are calling for to be applied in other areas of life - e.g. general taxation 'the richest should shoulder the greatest burden'. To my mind it's an example of making good use of otherwise locked-away wealth (property) for social purposes.
How is that unfair? Sure it's unequal proportionate to property wealth, but property has become a disproportionate beast. In terms that actually matter - e.g. what wealth you get to keep and what gets taken, it seems reasonably fair.
I'm sure it could be improved but it's a pretty good start.
-
I've got to say, I agree with Pete here.
I'm greatly amused by what I see as a Tory mis-step that will offend their base greatly. However, I don't see it as unfair.
I don't think it will work. I assume there must be numerous ways of passing on the property to whoever you wish, before this kicks in?
I don't know, can you sell your house to your children for a Quid? There can't be any law saying you must charge "market value" is there?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't know, can you sell your house to your children for a Quid? There can't be any law saying you must charge "market value" is there?
Wanna bet? You can 'gift' a property but you need a time machine to predict when to sell it so it's at least 7 years before you die. If you don't then inheritance tax applies to it. :shrug:
http://www.which.co.uk/elderly-care/financing-care/gifting-assets/343064-legal-transfer-of-property
I know when we bought Mrs Obi brother out of part ownership of a property they jointly owned, the amount of capital gains tax they charged had no bearing on what we paid him (despite us getting multiple estimates from estate agents). The tax office 'decided' (ie. picked a number out of the air) how much it was worth (not knowing the local market at all) and billed him on that amount. :wall:
What's the betting they'll change the rules around that as well.
-
What do you mean by unfair?
In one sense it's a grotesquely unfair policy as it breaks the idea of the state providing social insurance. The cost will be born mostly by those unlucky enough to get long-lasting degenerative diseases, and not shared across all of society. If you like this policy, consider if you would, for example, be happy to make victims of road accidents use their house equity to cover their NHS care?
It's reasonably progressive, if that's what you mean by fair.
The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.
BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.
-
What do you mean by unfair?
In one sense it's a grotesquely unfair policy as it breaks the idea of the state providing social insurance. The cost will be born mostly by those unlucky enough to get long-lasting degenerative diseases, and not shared across all of society. If you like this policy, consider if you would, for example, be happy to make victims of road accidents use their house equity to cover their NHS care?
It's reasonably progressive, if that's what you mean by fair.
The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.
BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.
Agree almost completely. Previously Labour (Andy Burnham) proposed a additional inheritance tax at 10-15% on all bequests to fund social care which was roundly condemned by the right wing press as a death tax. This type of arrangement would deal with the unfair 'lottery' aspects and also the potential issues around actually paying for end of life care - it's noticeable that the Conservative manifesto seems to provide no detail of how there proposals would actually work beyond a statement that no one would have to sell there house because they can defer payment until death, no mention of costs/interest/financing mechanism etc.
-
What about the aspect that it penalises people with long debilitating illnesses (such as dementia) over those with shorter more acute conditions? That may end up actually costing the NHS more...
Not trying to be a wanker - just sayin..
-
The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.
A few people might have missed dave's link which outlines some of the potential issues with this:
https://twitter.com/withorpe/status/865465756393156608
-
So what's your take away from that article? I don't see glaring unfairness.
Bottom line - everyone keeps £100k of their housing wealth and pays for care...
Right lets say I have no savings at the end of my life, spent everything.
All I have is the property to help with care I need, I live in Wales.
House price ave 148,000 total care cost ave 71,000.
There is a shortfall of 23,000 - as I get to keep 100,000 - who funds the difference.
So in this instance I have contributed but not covered my care costs.
The "death tax lottery" will have winners and losers.
If I am struck down with dementia these cost could spiral ever higher - who foots the bill.
Initally I was against any such policy as I felt we contribute enough through tax, NIC's.
Looking into the issues further has brought home the point that we not paying enough in to cover the costs of care, it does need to be sorted out.
In addition 100,000 is a lot of money now, but will it be as valuable in 20 or 30 years time?
I am pretty sure that this cap will be pegged to 100,000 for a good number of years.
The "death tax lottery" can't be fair as the goal post will shift for each and everyone of us.
Variables will be savings, property values, and the length/type of care that each one of us will need.
-
BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.
I agree with your criticisms of the Tory policy but the above quote is rubbish I'm afraid Stu. The Labour policy is, "We know it's a bit problem, we have no idea how to sort it without proposing a policy that will won't go down well with the voters so we'll brush it under the carpet by proposing an "unspecified tax" and whinge about the Tories' policy". It's no better than the Tory policy as they haven't got one.
-
BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.
I agree with your criticisms of the Tory policy but the above quote is rubbish I'm afraid Stu. The Labour policy is, "We know it's a bit problem, we have no idea how to sort it without proposing a policy that will won't go down well with the voters so we'll brush it under the carpet by proposing an "unspecified tax" and whinge about the Tories' policy". It's no better than the Tory policy as they haven't got one.
That sounds more accurate.
Let's face it, it's going to be and already is; a huge problem.
What was it Daltrey sang?
Oh yeah. I hope I die before I get old.
-
What do you mean by unfair?
In one sense it's a grotesquely unfair policy as it breaks the idea of the state providing social insurance. The cost will be born mostly by those unlucky enough to get long-lasting degenerative diseases, and not shared across all of society. If you like this policy, consider if you would, for example, be happy to make victims of road accidents use their house equity to cover their NHS care?
It's reasonably progressive, if that's what you mean by fair.
The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.
BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.
Your first point about 'breaking the idea of state providing social insurance' isn't accurate Stu - social care isn't fully funded by the state, it isn't like the NHS. The current rules say you're eligible to pay for your care if you have over £23,250 in savings and you could have to pay the full cost of care. The current rules seem to me far less equitable than the new policy.
Your second point about car crashes isn't a relevant comparison. Virtually every one of us is at risk of suffering in a traffic accident. Not every one of us is at risk of experiencing the sequence of events which leads to needing social care, i.e. get old enough - get ill enough - remain ill enough for long enough. A great many of us won't make it to that point hence social care isn't a universal 'risk' like traffic accidents.
Your point about equity release companies presumes without much evidence.
Your point about the Labour manifesto also starts from a point of presuming - that they have 'a better idea'. But there isn't much evidence this is true, because Labour won't tell us what their idea is. Burnham might have suggested an inheritance tax rise. But Burnham didn't get elected Labour leader and inheritance tax to pay for social care isn't Labour's stated policy .
Apart from that, yeah I agree ;D
-
So we all agree that inheritance tax increases (and, from the sounds of it, loophole closures) would be the best way to fund this... but no-one is offering this. So I'm still back to where I started on being surprised by how many left-wingers I see attacking the policy and thinking that whilst it ain't great it's not actually that bad and quite interesting.
Your second point about car crashes isn't a relevant comparison. Virtually every one of us is at risk of suffering in a traffic accident. Not every one of us is at risk of experiencing the sequence of events which leads to needing social care, i.e. get old enough - get ill enough - remain ill enough for long enough. A great many of us won't make it to that point hence social care isn't a universal 'risk' like traffic accidents.
Although on the whole I agree with galpinos regarding Stu's post, I don't get how you think it's not a relevant comparison. It seems to me that we all are at risk of needing social care in almost exactly the same way as being at risk of getting hit by a car. I think you're saying that because many of us will die before we get to needing social care it's different from a car crash... I understand where you're coming from, but that strikes me as being a little like saying that many of us will die before getting hit by a car so we don't need the NHS to cover treatment for that (perhaps a disease with an age related risk factor like cancer would make a better comparison though).
-
A lot to address in those last few posts.
Pete - as you yourself pointed out the task is to compare potential solutions to each other, not to the status quo. No-one thinks the status quo is good, and I agree the Tory proposal is better, but that's not saying much.
Everyone suggested the labour party haven't offered a solution, or it's too vague. That's just wrong. From page 71 onwards the of the manifesto:
Our first urgent task will be to address the immediate funding crisis. We will increase the social care budgets by a further £8 billion over the lifetime of the next Parliament
Labour will lay the foundations of a National Care Service for England.
This National Care Service will...
place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care.
It will be funded by
options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.
That's what the Tory proposal should be compared to. Galpinos' characterisation seems to be completely at odds with the above. I'd rather they'd put figures on the asset threshold, but it's still a pretty clear policy. For me the Tory alternative is crueller, more of a lottery as to who pays and, thanks to the unspecified cap, not much more concrete either.
Pete - Barrows has dealt with the car crash analogy quite well, so I won't go into that.
-
Although on the whole I agree with galpinos regarding Stu's post, I don't get how you think it's not a relevant comparison. It seems to me that we all are at risk of needing social care in almost exactly the same way as being at risk of getting hit by a car. I think you're saying that because many of us will die before we get to needing social care it's different from a car crash... I understand where you're coming from, but that strikes me as being a little like saying that many of us will die before getting hit by a car so we don't need the NHS to cover treatment for that (perhaps a disease with an age related risk factor like cancer would make a better comparison though).
That's a fair point, but I'd say 'risk of requiring social care' applies to a smaller band of the population than 'risk of needing the NHS (car crash or anything else)'. Which is reflected in the different way each is treated i.e. self-funded versus state funded.
Also, the small band of population at risk of 'requiring social care' also happen to be at the end of their lives. And hence it could be (and is being) argued have less need of their wealth than the population band at risk of 'needing the NHS'.
-
It doesn't matter how small the number affected is, the principle is the same. In many ways the smaller the better. If a very few people face a very large expense, society can cover this at negligible cost. In this case though, I think the estimates are that 1/10 of us will face costs greater than £100k. Much more likely than a car crash.
And indeed, those about to die have less use for their wealth. Which is why there is cross-party consensus that this should come from some sort of contribution from taxation on wealth. I just think the Tory proposal is not the best way of doing it.
To be fair though, you've got to give May some credit for using her lack of opposition as an excuse to lay out unpleasant solutions to politically difficult problems. I find the Tory manifesto odd in this respect. You've got tough stuff like the 'dementia tax' in it, which for all my criticisms above is a laudable attempt to fix a tough problem. On the other hand, there's also the repeat of the immigration 'ambition', which (depending on whether you think they really mean it or not) is either a £6 billion/yr unfunded pledge, or a bare-faced lie that they're repeating for the third election running
-
The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.
Interestingly enough, Legal and General have a 29% market share of the equity release market.
Capital Group own 8% of Legal and General's shares.
One of the executives of Capital Group is none other than Philip May...
-
Probably a bare-face lie to scoop up ukipers.
It doesn't matter how small the number affected is, the principle is the same. In many ways the smaller the better. If a very few people face a very large expense, society can cover this at negligible cost. In this case though, I think the estimates are that 1/10 of us will face costs greater than £100k. Much more likely than a car crash.
Context is important - where does that 1/10 figure sit in context of how many will require the NHS in their lifetime - my complete guess is 9/10 will require the NHS.
And, what does the '1 in 10th person' cost the NHS compared to the 1/10 of us costing the care service.
And is that 1/10 of those left alive at age.. what? 80? 75? 90?
Know that and you have a foundation for making a sensible plan.
-
So what's your take away from that article? I don't see glaring unfairness.
Bottom line - everyone keeps £100k of their housing wealth and pays for care...
I've replied Pete but no answer?
To add a little more to debate, saying this is a left leaning policy - death tax lottery, Tory policy seems to me to place all risk and responsibility on the individual. Labour want greater collective responsibility.
In the end I would think that welfare reform is the last thing on most people's mind when voting. NHS, Brexit, economy, education will probably be at the forefront of thinking. Brexit is the single biggest obstacle out there, a year down the line we are none the wiser.
It is easy to score points, highlight aspects of policy that are weak or you simply dislike. But that's politics.
The idea of trust and transparency plays a part to some degree, the Tories have 7 years to turn things around, have they, I'd say no.
In terms of tax and spend, labour seem a safer long term bet.
The facts seem to speak for themselves.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/)
-
On the other hand, there's also the repeat of the immigration 'ambition', which (depending on whether you think they really mean it or not) is either a £6 billion/yr unfunded pledge, or a bare-faced lie that they're repeating for the third election running
This might be an easy "win" for them. From what I can see around me every EU citizen & quite a lot of others are leaving the UK just as fast as they can. I suspect whoever forms the next govt may have to start looking for ways to enourage immigration.
-
Oh dear, the knives were out, but have been put away for a bit, probably.
Maybe next time the big guns will be rolled out.
Strong and stable read this. :coffee:
https://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/ (https://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/)
The tinternet never forgets.
-
Up for some karaoke later, the chorus is quite catchy.
Unsurprisingly it's number 10 in iTunes chart.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8&feature=youtu.be (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8&feature=youtu.be)
-
I've got to say, I agree with Pete here.
I'm greatly amused by what I see as a Tory mis-step that will offend their base greatly. However, I don't see it as unfair.
I don't think it will work. I assume there must be numerous ways of passing on the property to whoever you wish, before this kicks in?
I don't know, can you sell your house to your children for a Quid? There can't be any law saying you must charge "market value" is there?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I realised I was looking at this the wrong way, considering only the home owner and not their heirs.
Because, actually, there's this too:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170528/f552565c0bccb270fe5bc4307fd3cbf8.jpg)
-
Well - after watching the leaders tonight - I conclude that Theresa May is fucking boring, and I was impressed with Jeremy Corbyn.
I say that fully appreciating all I have said about him on here before. I'm still not sure whether Poxman gave one more of a hard time than the other...
My other highlight was the one man Theresa May standing ovation at the end :D
Dick.
-
What I took from watching that is that even if you don't agree with what Corbyn is saying, he believes in it and it comes from the heart. God help us if May wins, imagine that shambles up against Merkel when negotiating Brexit - she'll get eviscerated.
-
I thought Corbin did well too. May had very little to say at all really.
-
What I got from the debate last night was
1. Breakfast means Breakfast. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. A good full English breakfast is good for our nhs, economy, police etc. However May is happy to walk away from a continental breakfast. No deal is better than a bad breakfast. This doesn't make sense why go hungry.
2. Thatcher shook hands with many dictators, queen shook hand with Jimmy sav, tb lair shook hands with gadaffi/bush, may shook hands of Saudis/trump, Corbyn shook hands with ira 20/30 yrs ago. So what.
3. Paxo's lost his marbles, his dementia tax bill will be big.
4. As tomtom states there were a couple of dicks in the audience, the guy standing up on his own at the end clapping may, the former lab voter/business man who didn't want to pay a bit extra corporation tax, minimum wage, what a tw*t.
-
Does anybody know anything about the Naylor Report - May bigged it up in the Andrew interview.Think that I need to read a few of these reports more closely.
Anybody interested in the future of the NHS needs to have eyes on this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3hrpDCct8 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3hrpDCct8)
Turns out it's simply the privatisation of the NHS, by massive US health company.
2for1 land/asset grab no problem. If you have some loose change.
Unfucking believable, its like doing a big shop on a slightly bigger scale.
This sounds pretty bad if true, first they came for the school fields, now the hospitals.
-
Yep, and G4S are to take over crime investigation from most police forces. Gives the term "Private Detective" a whole new meaning...
This includes arrests and detention as I understand. I'll find a link.
Edit:
There you go, couldn't remember which paper I'd read it in.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime
I find this bloody scary, to be frank.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm sure it'll be every bit as successful* as the privatisation of the buses and trains was.
*By successful of course I mean profitable.
-
If Heineken did interviews they'd probably be like this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ49aAP6ZpE (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ49aAP6ZpE)
David Davies couldn't negotiate himself out of a cardboard box.
Where is May, busy reading a Dummies guide to negotiations.
-
Where is May, busy reading a Dummies guide to negotiations.
The first rule of Prime Ministers club is, you don't talk about Prime Ministers club...
Loving the "Putting the "N" into "Cuts"" posters that are being pasted over Con. banners around the country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=otEgR49kmZM (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=otEgR49kmZM)
I like Barry a lot, I think it is because of the way he quietly goes about his work.
About 4 minutes into this interview we are starting to get somewhere with Breakfast means Breakfast. 6.8p to be precise, how many cornflakes is that.
-
Relatively little discussion on here for a while, however now it seems there is a possibility things may be more interesting than first thought. Labour are closing in the polls, and the momentum seems to be with Corbyn (if you’ll pardon the pun). I’ve never trusted the polls so obviously there will still be a sweeping Tory majority for our lord and saviour Theresa May but hey I’m a natural optimist so, just taking the contrary view for a bit….two questions:
1. What do people think will happen if the Conservatives win a majority that is not “vastly” different to the one they have at the minute?
2. What do people think will happen if we end up with a hung parliament?
Both broad questions – i.e. who will govern and how, what will happen to leaders, what will happen RE Brexit? I’m really not informed on this at all! Its nice to dream innit :ang:
-
The party leader who draws the short straw has to become one of the legs of May's Power Stance™ to prop her up.
-
If there is a similar/low Tory majority - the knives will be out for Queen May. And she may well not last long.
If it's a hung parliament depending on the balance of votes we could have a Lab/SNP (and maybe another?) coalition or a Tory minority government.
There's no way Labour will get a majority (that would require a massive SNP implosion as well as taking many English seats) imho.
JC is rising to the challenge (at last) and people are realising May has no policies..
I'm interested in as how much of the Brexit vote was a fuck you to the 'establishment' and whether Jc can capture some of those voters as he really does offer something different from the status quo.
-
If it's hung, there's no chance of a Lib/Con coalition. Farron's been way to outspoken in his dislike of May and even my beloved, dithering, over empathetic Libs wouldn't make the same mistake twice.
Would they?
-
If there is a similar/low Tory majority - the knives will be out for Queen May. And she may well not last long.
Yes well quite, but how will that go down in the country? "Give me own mandate for Brexit" we were told. All campaigning stuff based on Theresa May rather than Conservative party - then she gets booted out! That's swapping one PM without a mandate for another surely? And who's going to replace her? I thought she was the safe pair of hands amongst all the swivel eyed Tory loons? Don't get me wrong I don't disagree that the knives will be out, they probably already are, I just question the legitimacy of her getting replaced given the way that the Tories have framed the choice in this GE. Although getting rid's an easy sell on a personalities level I don't think it will be an easy sell conceptually / morally. They backed themselves into a corner on this one, if they don't get a decent increase in majority then they can hardly claim to be "strong and stable" and "have a mandate for (hard) Brexit"with TM, but if she goes then surely we're back to square one.
At work so will consider the other points later.
-
This is worth a read.
I find it amusing that both sides would probably agree with the predictions, whilst simultaneously being either very happy or inordinately incensed by the very same outcome...
Quite tongue in cheek, I ask (assuming some relation to reality) where would things go from there?
Industrial decline (more than we've already experienced, I mean)?
Weak economy, growing weaker?
It looks like a bad idea to me.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/06/we-ran-labours-2017-manifesto-through-video-game-and-got-egalitarian
-
Superb. I liked the Tory one too... got 6% in the election :D
-
The old adage is that parties don't win elections, they lose them. May going from a predicted landslide to hung will definitely be losing, and the chance of them attempting to continue as a minority seems slim. However if it is very close there are some right wingers in NI who could give them the few extra.
As I said a while back, I think the result on the day will depend on the turnout. Tory voters are notoriously shy so under-represented in polls, but I think many will have less reasons than ever to turnout. Labour is in the opposite position but whether the youth or the corbyn-sceptic-old-guard will actually turnout remains to be seen. My own theory of British voters is that all that matters is whether the existing lot have been in long enough for the middle to get fed up with the incumbents and fancy the others for a change. Seven years has not been long enough for that since the seventies. But then it's 2017, maybe the lucky sevens are all lining up.
Best case scenario for me would be a hung parliament, followed by a rainbow coalition of the left. All agree on PR, which changes everything, SNP and LD invoke second referendum on Brexit as condition of coalition, which is soundly lost following Trump's impeachment and revelations about Farage/Banks being funded from Russia. Everyone looks back on 2016/7 as a national funny turn and being Brits never mention it again.
-
There is nothing like a rant, especially when you find a money tree in your car from pana-"fuc*king-ma. Shame his battery went kaput at the end, just as he hits his stride :boxing:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxM0swbuxQo (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxM0swbuxQo)
He looks like Arnie in Terminator but a bit more circumspect, maybe chief of Corbs security.
Loving this election, Corbs doing really well but thought he was a bit knackered/lack lustre yesterday, needs to keep things going. Manifesto really positive.
The Lab Brexit team miles better than Cons goon squad. -kier, Barry, lady nudgee (uhh) v fox, bozzer, double d. I'd want Brexit negotiations carried out by Lab.
May"be" appears lost in the wilderness, she is so dull almost lifeless. The con manifesto a work of genius, being able to shoot yourself in both feet and head takes some doing.
Seems as though they have lied too often.
7 years and no change or improvement, as far as I can see things getting worse.
Just watched Tiny Tim interview with Neil, he can't half speak. Thought that Neil was going to throw a punch, upset that he couldn't get a word in edge ways. A really horrible interview, both need to go and have a lie down.
Looking forward to seeing Barry later think he might be on Question Time.
Still expect Tory win, but a lot closer than we all first thought.
It's great that there is now some definite choice at this election.
-
This was worth a delve.
I ran it including all policy aspects available (17?).
https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/1/select-issues
Unsurprisingly, coming up with:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170601/792edc9a6af0e723afa3db9843a50d00.jpg)
Edit:
By my estimation, this would make me a very boring shade of brown...
-
Actually, it's worth seeing the overall results for this survey.
Possibly those of Liberal/Lefty bent are more likely to investigate their opinions?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170601/3c3989020c0062aeee59cdcee261af8e.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170601/89ac9af7ece0d01b160b60bf3e73a502.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170601/fbc34bf2db8720e3e5835ab689566fef.jpg)
The last is a breakdown of the National results.
Seems most people should be voting Green.
Our system, in fact us, we, you and I, suck; don't we.
Who's next for the pistol when I've shot myself in the foot?
-
Seems most people should be voting Green.
Our system, in fact us, we, you and I, suck; don't we.
Who's next for the pistol when I've shot myself in the foot?
Yep
Yep
Yep
I'll be voting Lib Dem to make mine count >:( :blink: :shit:(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170602/1cea8c4ffb5fa9b2e026b973ae925cb5.jpg)
-
Now I know how Herman Buhl felt.
-
Now I know how Herman Buhl felt.
You're standing all night, on a shelf too small to sit on, on a 60* ice face, untied?
This will make voting tricky, for sure.
-
Perhaps I am blue with cold?
-
So today has to be a dead cat day.. Tory Mp being charged, May being savaged over non Paris climate deal response..
So what's Lynton Crosby going to throw out there???
-
I was thinking exactly the same - expecting some unsavory allegation re Corbyn they've been saving for an emergency.
Saw today on Owen Jones' Twitter feed that as well as cancelling her appearance on Woman's Hour, The Maybot has been withdrawn from all BBC local radio appearances today.
If they're thinking that Jenny Murray and BBC Radio Lincolnshire look like risky gigs, I'll be interested to see how she (can a robot really be a "she"?) fares against Dimblebot tonight.
-
Ahh - maybe they'll do a trump and bring out something on Corbyn 1 hour before the debate...
-
is the issue that only 29% of those asked believe that May is a human?
-
Ahh - maybe they'll do a trump and bring out something on Corbyn 1 hour before the debate...
As has been pointed out on Twitter by some, since the press have been conducting a ridiculous shit-slinging job against Corbachev now from day one what else could they possibly come up with now that will have any impact? He must almost be immune to it now, everyone is desensitised to it, and now it just looks increasingly desperate. They must only be left with "Commie Jez Ate My Hamster" type shit.
-
As has been pointed out on Twitter by some, since the press have been conducting a ridiculous shit-slinging job against Corbachev now from day one what else could they possibly come up with now that will have any impact? He must almost be immune to it now, everyone is desensitised to it, and now it just looks increasingly desperate. They must only be left with "Commie Jez Ate My Hamster" type shit.
Today's Express front page headline taking up 90% of the cover - "CORBYN DOESN'T BELIEVE IN BRITAIN." Below, in usual tiny type, "says Theresa May."
-
As has been pointed out on Twitter by some, since the press have been conducting a ridiculous shit-slinging job against Corbachev now from day one what else could they possibly come up with now that will have any impact? He must almost be immune to it now, everyone is desensitised to it, and now it just looks increasingly desperate. They must only be left with "Commie Jez Ate My Hamster" type shit.
Today's Express front page headline taking up 90% of the cover - "CORBYN DOESN'T BELIEVE IN BRITAIN." Below, in usual tiny type, "says Theresa May."
Yes that caught my eye today, wankers.
-
I wonder what Crosby has hidden in his 'only for special occasions' folder...
TBH, if he doesn't use it today/tonight, then I'm not sure he has anything.
-
Somebody has found May! She has finally got her mojo back and given the following upbeat message, tense mouth indeed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0JYIbRSCI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0JYIbRSCI)
-
Front page of (supposedly) pro-Tory, anti-Corbyn, BBC news.
I think they're either, actually pretty neutral or realising the Tories are actually pretty awful.
Strong and Stable, What What, Tally-ho and Toodle-pip!
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170602/9e34dfad2c64cbed884f0e000bb85cb0.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
...or maybe it's fairly undeniable? Plus, as they go on to mention in the article itself about that guy, it doesn't actually change anything. They're due to appear in court on the 4th July so that's too late for this election meaning he's on there no matter what.
I'm kind of hoping that this is the police/CPS giving the Tories a bit of a hard time in the lead up to the election due to all the bullshit they've had to put up with from them. The fact it happened to be a key seat where they took down Farage is telling. They had until the 18th June to do this too, so they had the time...
-
The stars are beginning to align
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour
-
...or maybe it's fairly undeniable? Plus, as they go on to mention in the article itself about that guy, it doesn't actually change anything. They're due to appear in court on the 4th July so that's too late for this election meaning he's on there no matter what.
Well it does change things, and it's clearly not too late for the election is it. Loads of people could decide not to vote for him.
-
The stars are beginning to align
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour
I welcome it, but this really needs a McEnroe "you cannot be serious!" GIF! What are the opinion writers going to write about now? All they ever did was vilify Corbyn!
-
This is the best anti-Corbyn article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-threat-party-election-support (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/jeremy-corbyn-labour-threat-party-election-support)
-
And the Torygraph seems to be slowly rounding on May.
After their piece pushing for Rudd to succeed May, this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/jeremy-corbyn-approval-ratings-rise-theresa-mays-popularity/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg
Edit:
I don't know if anyone here saw that Torygraph opinion piece about Rudd:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/amber-rudd-theresa-mays-saviour-successor/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg
Paywalled for full article, but the first paragraph has the important cant.
There has been a good deal of sniping at May from the Editorial staff of that rag.
Osborne gave her a stinging slap from the pages of the Standard (I've lost the link, but it was snide), too.
-
Ok let's be wildly optimistic & assume that the Tories don't win a majority ... what happens then?
Lab & the LD claim they won't work with anyone.
God help us, a minority Tory govt reliant on Lab to achieve a hard Brexit - really? Electoral suicide for Labour surely ?
Minority Lab govt - getting it's social stuff through with LD/SNP support & Brexit through with CON/UKIP/BNP support - sounds just about possible but unlikely.
It's looking ominously like another election while the Article 50 clock ticks.
What do people think ?
-
What do people think ?
we put Sturgeon in charge, strike up our own deal with Ireland and then help Ireland to annex France - then Ireland, Scotland and France guide the whole enterprise in a gaelic/gaulic direction
-
What do people think ?
we put Sturgeon in charge, strike up our own deal with Ireland and then help Ireland to annex France - then Ireland, Scotland and France guide the whole enterprise in a gaelic/gaulic direction
Only if Getafix supplies the magic potion and Menhirs are exempted from import Tariffs.
-
The stars are beginning to align
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour
I welcome it, but this really needs a McEnroe "you cannot be serious!" GIF! What are the opinion writers going to write about now? All they ever did was vilify Corbyn!
The winds of change are amazing. Think corbs has been on the corfefe :coffee:
The guardian, me included have been pretty pissed off with Lab/corb's over the last couple of years. They simply drifted along, no focus or energy just lots of bickering. However for all his faults, corby's is an excellent campaigner and his manifesto gives everybody hope about a more positive future for all of us. Since that moment the wind has definitely been behind corbs.
Some in the lab cabinet are excellent, brains trust keir and Barry, are up there with any of the big hitters from labs past. Notice how the Abbott has been sidelined recently, whoever has been working on the pr side of things obviously has their finger on the pulse. Corbs appears to have the magic maybe even PM material who would have thought that 5 weeks ago.
Cons are imploding further day by day. To be a fly on the wall in Tory hq, I am feeling a bit sorry for May, she looks really unwell. Maybe it's the "chain" but she seems to have the weight of the world on her shoulders. For me the big turning point was the Tory manifesto it was/is simply a blank cheque for them to do as they pleased. It unravelled almost as soon as it was presented. May/Cons don't appear to want to answer any questions just bulldoze things through.
I don't think that guardian could get behind libs, Farron is just a bag of hot air, shown for what he was last night.
Corbs, after all the attacks from inside lab, from the press etc, needs to be congratulated on all he has done over the last few weeks. He has turned things around and I think that guardian supports what he has done in championing a fairer more humane outlook for everybody.
It would be a shame having run a good race Corbs didn't scoop the top prize. But won't be despondent though if he doesn't at least he has given it his all, he never gave up.
-
Incidentally you have to wonder where Labour might ne know of the PLP hadn't stabbed Corbyn in the back in June.
-
The stars are beginning to align
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour
I welcome it, but this really needs a McEnroe "you cannot be serious!" GIF! What are the opinion writers going to write about now? All they ever did was vilify Corbyn!
The winds of change are amazing.
The guardian, me included have been pretty pissed off with Lab/corb's over the last couple of years. They simply drifted along, no focus or energy just lots of bickering. However for all his faults, corby's is an excellent campaigner, his manifesto gives everybody hope about a more positive future for all of us. Since that moment the wind has definitely been behind corbs.
Some in the lab cabinet are excellent, brains trust kier and Barry, are up there with any of the big hitters from labs past. Notice how the Abbott has been sidelined recently, whoever has been working on the pr side of things obviously has their finger on the pulse. Corbs appears to have the magic maybe even PM material who would have thought that 5 weeks ago.
Cons imploding further day by day, to be a fly on the wall in Tory hq. I am feeling a bit sorry for May, she looks unwell. For me the big turning point was Tory manifesto it was/is simply a blank cheque for them to do as they pleased. It unravelled almost as soon as it was presented.
I don't think that guardian could get behind libs, Farron is just a bag of hot air, shown for what he was last night.
So all in all Corbs, after all the attacks from inside lab, from the press etc, needs to be congratulated on all he has done over the last few weeks. He has turned things around and I think that guardian supports what he has done in promoting a fairer more humane outlook for everybody.
It would be a shame having run a good race Corbs didn't scoop the top prize. I won't be dispondent though if he doesn't but at least he has given it his all, he never gave up.
I agree, the Corbinator is a totally different man when campaigning. That's what lights him up and has brought Labour within touching distance of the Conservatives
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/labour-accuses-tories-of-fake-news-over-video-of-corbyn-ira-comments
I do worry that the dark arts highlighted in this article will have a damaging effect on the vote.hopfully people see this sort of stuff for what it is..... desperate mud slinging bull shit!
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
-
I'm really fucking pissed off that none of the main players in this election have told us what their policy on calling the grit/lime is.
ITS A FUCKING SCANDAL.
-
The important thing about calling the lime and the grit is to get the best call possible. No call is better than a bad call and we're prepared to walk away from the either medium if the conditions of the call are not right.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
No call is better than a bad call and we're prepared to walk away from the either medium if the conditions of the call are not right.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Walk away from either medium, there is always a third way, plastic.
-
You lot cannot be trusted in these negotiations, we voted for a Hard Grit
-
Grit is for the
punters many not the talentedfew.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Just watched the big debate, why do people relish talking about Trident.
Most of the thinking seems to be along the lines, we got it why don't we use it.
How many times have they been used in the last 70/80 years?
It's the biggest non starter, its hardly as if the PM is going to consult with Clive from Clithroe about first or second use.
Scrap Trident, use the money on something else.
Tough on lime and tough of the causes of lime is what's needed.
-
I never realised there were so many in York scared of Kim Jong Un targeting Betty's tea rooms - for a Nuclear first strike.
They've got far more to fear from global warming.
-
Love the audience dickheads who get a hardon at the prospect of firing nukes at north korea, despite the fact that NK only poses a credible nuclear threat to anyone swimming within 10miles of their own coast.
-
Fair play to the BBC though - Dimblebum let the audience do some hard interrogating of both...
Football fans will be aware of the phrase 'it's the hope that kills you'..
I was quite accepting of a Tory whitewash (in a prepared for it way rather than wanting it of course) - and not engaging in politics for another 5 years - hiding away trying to ignore all the shite. Bit now JC is coming up on the outside of May - as they close towards the line... I have a trickle of hope for a non Tory win...
The fuckers will still swing it somehow. They always do - it's like Germans taking penalties (ask Huddersfield.. ;) )
-
I think we should have a coalition to call the grit/lime.
-
We have one, Johnny and Haydn.
Also couldn't believe the grief dished out about trident. But why wouldn't you. Not every day you get to initiate the end of the world.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Corbs has been steaming these past few weeks but I think he's stumbled tonight. His chat on domestic issues is brilliant but he doesn't appeal to ya man on da street when he talks foreign policy. I can't see many floating voters coming over to the cause.
-
Fair play to the BBC though - Dimblebum let the audience do some hard interrogating of both...
Football fans will be aware of the phrase 'it's the hope that kills you'..
I was quite accepting of a Tory whitewash (in a prepared for it way rather than wanting it of course) - and not engaging in politics for another 5 years - hiding away trying to ignore all the shite. Bit now JC is coming up on the outside of May - as they close towards the line... I have a trickle of hope for a non Tory win...
The fuckers will still swing it somehow. They always do - it's like Germans taking penalties (ask Huddersfield.. ;) )
I agree with you there TT but I must say I thought that corbs was given more awkward questioning than May. May gets away with shit like saying that they're putting more money into the NHS and then nobody follows it up with a point about per capita spending.
-
The other thing that got my goat.
£4 million to North Korea through foreign aid, did the guy make that up.
Teresa didn't seem to know.
Think it might have been rent a gob, the nuke guy.
Maybe we are selling n Korea Trident piece by piece, year by year.
I don't have a problem with this, British jobs for British workers.
-
...or maybe it's fairly undeniable? Plus, as they go on to mention in the article itself about that guy, it doesn't actually change anything. They're due to appear in court on the 4th July so that's too late for this election meaning he's on there no matter what.
Well it does change things, and it's clearly not too late for the election is it. Loads of people could decide not to vote for him.
It essentially is too late for the election though - the story isn't likely to develop any more until the court case in July, so it's just going to fade away. They've gone into full 'innocent until proven guilty' mode, they're still putting out the lie that it was just a minor expenses admin error, and fundamentally it's just not that interesting a story for most people so I don't think it's going to gain traction and become A Thing pre-election.
Also, before that prick the people of South Thanet were voting Farage in. I don't think a light bit of possible voter fraud here or there is likely to be much of a problem if they've generally been voting UKIP or UKIP Lite recently.
-
https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html (https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html)
Last night on question time "Tim nice but dim" type raised question about zero hour contract. As a student he suggested scrapping zhc would mean hardship for him and his mates.
The twitterati did a bit of sniffing and dug up some dirt.
Turns out Timmy boy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Surprise, sur-fucking-surprise.
-
The other thing that got my goat.
£4 million to North Korea through foreign aid, did the guy make that up.
Teresa didn't seem to know.
Think it might have been rent a gob, the nuke guy.
Maybe we are selling n Korea Trident piece by piece, year by year.
I don't have a problem with this, British jobs for British workers.
I did a quick fact check on the night. We have given £4 million in aid to North Korea, but it was a total payment over about 5 or 6 years. The annual aid payments have increased over the last 7 years from less than £50k to around £700k.
May did not handle the question well, and it is concerning that she was unaware of the payments.
If she had been able to explain the money was targeted at educating North Korean diplomats in English and culture to enable communication, which I certainly accept is important.
-
To be fair, I am the least of Theresy May's supporters, but with a total foreign aid budget of ~£12bn (2015), she can't be expected to approve every few hundred £k, or even be informed of it. That's not realistic, it needs to be done by qualified civil servants.
She should however ensure there are clear processes and sufficient staff in place to ensure the money is distributed appropriately. If it isn't - she is accountable - but without having to have known any details.
-
It was a crap Q and Dimblebot should have hustled proceedings along then... one arse in the audience with a particular point to make.
-
Grabbing political capital much?
Hypocritical much?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170604/bfe50e4ac27869c3e3beba2bb357e13a.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I would fully expect the horrible attack in London to play into May and the Governments hands.
Its almost like a scenario out of House of Cards...
But - its been a strange election - and its happened on her watch ~ and she can't even blame it on a previous home secretary..
Corbyn starting the election ball rolling early - which could backfire - though May's announcement was blatantly political...
-
Grabbing political capital much?
Hypocritical much?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170604/bfe50e4ac27869c3e3beba2bb357e13a.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It terribly sad, really shaken by this, passed through London Bridge a few days before to visit my sister. The weather was lovely yesterday, people just out enjoying themselves. Think May is right that Manchester/London is a wake up call. Something has to give. Timing of speech insensitive. These attacks will keep happening as these are home grown nutters, maybe returnees from Syria or Libya but more likely to have simply been radicalised here. That is the worry. Yes May's speech was used for political gain, it was on her watch, she's not done anything to tackle the problem as home sec. These nut jobs are using religion as a shield, they aren't religious in any sense of the word. Extremism of all/any kinds needs to be rooted out, funding, radicalisation etc. Tread on a few toes to try to stop any further incidents, rather that then innocent lives being taken.
-
What role do you think Prevent has?
-
What role do you think Prevent has?
Good question, we have had lots of inset at school regarding prevent.
The message for teachers is to be "aware," if in doubt report to safe guarding team.
However prevent didn't stop Manchester incident even though the nutter had been reported.
My feeling is that radicalisation happens online - sites, channels that promote radicalisation be it Muslim extremism, the far far right etc need to be simply closed down, although this might be easier said than done. If China can restrict internet use I am sure that this can be tackled. But the elephant in the room is the black hole that is the dark net, as many loop holes need to be closed as possible.
-
https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html (https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html)
Last night on question time "Tim nice but dim" type raised question about zero hour contract. As a student he suggested scrapping zhc would mean hardship for him and his mates.
The twitterati did a bit of sniffing and dug up some dirt.
Turns out Timmy boy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Surprise, sur-fucking-surprise.
Just to take us back a few posts, the left don't cover themselves in glory when they start witch hunts against people asking questions on QT. So the kid's from a privileged background. Is it acceptable to make a pariah of him because of who his parents are? His question about 0 hour contracts isn't completely irrelevant. In the past I've had at least 3 jobs on 0 hours contracts. I took these when I was between "proper" jobs and they tided me over till something more permanent along. In each case it's very likely that the job would not have been there had the employer had to offer me a formal contract. As it was, I was able to walk into these jobs easily and they kept me from applying for JSA.
I'm not saying they're great because it's obviously absolutely wank to be employed on one on a long term basis. I'd prefer it if there was some halfway house between the two options I.e if you've been in your 0 hours job for 6 months then your employer should offer you a formal contract. Obviously that example has its own problem (lots of people getting laid off after 5 months) but you catch my drift.
-
https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html (https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html)
Last night on question time "Tim nice but dim" type raised question about zero hour contract. As a student he suggested scrapping zhc would mean hardship for him and his mates.
The twitterati did a bit of sniffing and dug up some dirt.
Turns out Timmy boy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Surprise, sur-fucking-surprise.
Just to take us back a few posts, the left don't cover themselves in glory when they start witch hunts against people asking questions on QT. So the kid's from a privileged background. Is it acceptable to make a pariah of him because of who his parents are? His question about 0 hour contracts isn't completely irrelevant. In the past I've had at least 3 jobs on 0 hours contracts. I took these when I was between "proper" jobs and they tided me over till something more permanent along. In each case it's very likely that the job would not have been there had the employer had to offer me a formal contract. As it was, I was able to walk into these jobs easily and they kept me from applying for JSA.
I'm not saying they're great because it's obviously absolutely wank to be employed on one on a long term basis. I'd prefer it if there was some halfway house between the two options I.e if you've been in your 0 hours job for 6 months then your employer should offer you a formal contract. Obviously that example has its own problem (lots of people getting laid off after 5 months) but you catch my drift.
So what happened before zero hour contracts?
Did people have no way of working without contracts? What about temping.
I've done my fair share of temp work, at offices, as a temp teacher.
Between perminent jobs about 15 yrs ago, before zhc were thought about.
Not ideal but managed to muddle through for about a year all in all.
My point about "Tim" is that he will probably never need to work this way so why did he ask the question? If I was a student now I'd be more inclined to ask JC will my uni fees be paid off, not zhc. Or if I had a silver spoon about the tax i will pay in the future.
At the end of the day business need to treat workers properly and pay the going rate.
By the way do the right cover themselves with glory or is it only the left.
-
My point about "Tim" is that he will probably never need to work this way so why did he ask the question?
Does an issue have to affect you directly for you to ask a question about it? Are you only allowed to quiz Tim Farron on gay marriage if you are gay and hoping to get married?
How can you know he might never need to take a 0 hours contract? All that stupid blog shows us is that he's been on a skiing holiday, he's had a gap year, he went to a private school, and he's been to a party where he wore a tuxedo (such garments are available for hire by the way). So his parents are obviously far from destitute, but anything about his relationship with his parents' money is one that you've assumed and is a result of your own prejudice.
-
My point about "Tim" is that he will probably never need to work this way so why did he ask the question?
Does an issue have to affect you directly for you to ask a question about it? Are you only allowed to quiz Tim Farron on gay marriage if you are gay and hoping to get married?
How can you know he might never need to take a 0 hours contract? All that stupid blog shows us is that he's been on a skiing holiday, he's had a gap year, he went to a private school, and he's been to a party where he wore a tuxedo (such garments are available for hire by the way). So his parents are obviously far from destitute, but anything about his relationship with his parents' money is one that you've assumed and is a result of your own prejudice.
I did say "probably" never needs to work this way.
He can ask what he likes it is a free country, I'm not bothered one way or the other to be honest. It is just as a student, wouldn't asking about student fees be more pressing.
I'm not assuming anything, only the fact that "Tim" comes from a wealthy family, as you have pointed out. Maybe his paper round paid for all his schooling, trips abroad. Good on him if this was the case.
-
What role do you think Prevent has?
Good question, we have had lots of inset at school regarding prevent.
The message for teachers is to be "aware," if in doubt report to safe guarding team.
However prevent didn't stop Manchester incident even though the nutter had been reported.
My feeling is that radicalisation happens online - sites, channels that promote radicalisation be it Muslim extremism, the far far right etc need to be simply closed down, although this might be easier said than done. If China can restrict internet use I am sure that this can be tackled. But the elephant in the room is the black hole that is the dark net, as many loop holes need to be closed as possible.
Old but gold.
There is a little detail that has been glossed over and is very much part of the current picture.
From 2008:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade
A lot of thisgot swept under the carpet because of the crisis, but May knows, for sure. Our current "business" dealings with the Gulf states, the moves against Qatar this AM; are all connected.
Her internet crap is her own Orwellian desires peeking through!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Even the Tories are laying the current situation at May's door:
Paywalled, but not as biased:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-should-resign-over-security-failures-says-steve-hilton-david-camerons-former-strategy-chief-gcbs7ljbb
Open access, but with cant:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-resign-security-failures-steve-hilton-london-attack-manchester-westminster-terror-david-a7772931.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/david-camerons-former-aide-steve-hilton-calls-theresa-may-resign/
To me, it seems out of character for Corbyn to call for her resignation too?
I'm not sure he's used such strong language before?
I've heard from two places today/yesterday that there is a connection between events in the Gulf today and events here, along with a friend who's employers are moving their staff out (despite lucrative contracts with both our and the US Navies based there). Rumour and conjecture and I wait with bated breath to see if it's all coincidence (back in 2001 I was "reliably " inform of many different things, post 9/11, that turned out to be utter crap)...
-
Am I alone in finding that politicians saying "something must be done" is much scarier than terrorist attacks.
-
Am I alone in finding that politicians saying "something must be done" is much scarier than terrorist attacks.
She's been doing it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2015/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2015
Figure 5: Change in the number of police officers, as at 31 March 2006 to 2015, compared with the previous 12 months, England and Wales1
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/85baf8e9329bdd16b46e331e20ec4f5e.jpg)
Figure 4: Police officers, as at 31 March 2006 to 2015, England and Wales
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/9156ac6a68ecf7ead9848964756b2cdc.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/d0c5029f934452b0642cc9727858edd7.jpg)
-
To be honest I don't find large numbers of armed police very reassuring either.
-
You should.
As long as we continue with our current distaste for overt armed policing.
The Cops themselves are adamant they should be, and remain, unarmed, though most want a greater "Non lethal " capability and that is predominantly for their own protection.
On balance, we have a good police service, in comparison to most of the world.
The Tories are hell bent on handing policing powers to private companies. That is something you should fear.
-
(https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/robocop/images/e/ef/Ed209.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/263?cb=20100116202642)
-
To me, it seems out of character for Corbyn to call for her resignation too?
I'm not sure he's used such strong language before?
I've heard from two places today/yesterday that there is a connection between events in the Gulf today and events here, along with a friend who's employers are moving their staff out (despite lucrative contracts with both our and the US Navies based there). Rumour and conjecture and I wait with bated breath to see if it's all coincidence (back in 2001 I was "reliably " inform of many different things, post 9/11, that turned out to be utter crap)...
I thought the same on both counts i.e. out of character for Corbyn, and the timing of the Qatar thing seemed like there may be more to it than mere coincidence. Can you elaborate on what your friend's think the connection is or does that stray too much into "rumour and conjecture"?
Corbyn singling out Saudi Arabia as a source of funding was also interesting for someone who has a chance (however slim) of being PM in a few days.
-
Corbyn singling out Saudi Arabia as a source of funding was also interesting for someone who has a chance (however slim) of being PM in a few days.
Apparently there is a incomplete report being sat on by the Govt that describes Saudi funding of terrorist groups...
-
To me, it seems out of character for Corbyn to call for her resignation too?
I'm not sure he's used such strong language before?
I've heard from two places today/yesterday that there is a connection between events in the Gulf today and events here, along with a friend who's employers are moving their staff out (despite lucrative contracts with both our and the US Navies based there). Rumour and conjecture and I wait with bated breath to see if it's all coincidence (back in 2001 I was "reliably " inform of many different things, post 9/11, that turned out to be utter crap)...
I thought the same on both counts i.e. out of character for Corbyn, and the timing of the Qatar thing seemed like there may be more to it than mere coincidence. Can you elaborate on what your friend's think the connection is or does that stray too much into "rumour and conjecture"?
Corbyn singling out Saudi Arabia as a source of funding was also interesting for someone who has a chance (however slim) of being PM in a few days.
Way too far into the unknown.
I've a couple of friends in private security work in the Gulf, another (the one now in a UAE hotel) who's an Engineering contractor who works for US/UK Navy based in Qatar. So we're talking FB messages about what they think is happening, though the first two are likely to be in the know. Sometimes, though, when you hear something "certain" from your client (the one you babysit), you believe it because they're big and important etc; then it turns out they're as clueless as you are.
I asked my erstwhile Brother-in-law (who is a senior copper in the UAE), if he'd heard anything.
He sent a smiley back.
I'm just not "connected" anymore to the rumour mill, I suppose...
Like you, I was struck by the tone of political response to May's speech and I already knew about the Saudi threats (took me a good few minutes to find an article about it this morning), from being employed by Prince Turki in 2010-11.
That was before I heard about Qatar.
It just feels too much of a coincidence.
-
The Tories are hell bent on handing policing powers to private companies. That is something you should fear.
No argument there.
-
Thoughts?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133644-theresa-mays-repeated-calls-to-ban-encryption-still-wont-work/?cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2017-Echobox&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1496672898
-
His brain is far bigger than mine, I trust his judgement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn-labour-theresa-may-conservatives-endorsement-general-election-a7774016.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn-labour-theresa-may-conservatives-endorsement-general-election-a7774016.html)
-
Also, if you have time; I think it's worth reading through the Twitter convo of Steve Hilton. His additional comments defending his position on May, I found more revealing than his original Tweet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveHiltonx/status/871605682629353473
-
Controlling the 'tinternet won't stop extremism - or nutjob cheb-ends making plans - after all, OBL directed shit via hand written scrawled notes etc..
Plus whatsapp/FB messenger etc.. are all (fairly well) encrypted (the cat is out of the bag) and the web is so huge - people could communicate in code via the UKB Shark-Oak thread for example ;) It would make it spicier - but anyway...
But - some sort of www regulation/control would add a layer of complexity for jihadi wannabe fanboi's to get information/get in touch with people/material/videos/instruction manuals etc.. But not a particularly effective layer of complexity.
Still, it would stop my mum accidentally finding the recipe for TATP....
-
I say! This is a bit off!
Not exactly Corbyn's fan boy myself, but surely the Political Editor of the Sunday times should be a little more circumspect than:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/186fc4d5da4c9ae6300b423af4bba046.jpg)
There's cant and then there's utter partisan bullshit.
Again, the Big C man might not be my chosen PM candidate, but has he made any arms deals with the people who actually fund real terrorists?
-
I know, I know, enough already etc...
But, I don't delve into Twitter so often; however, today has been hilarious in a rather dark way:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/60021c663aa09476b50e14fbbba69c8f.jpg)
-
Again, the Big C man might not be my chosen PM candidate, but has he made any arms deals with the people who actually fund real terrorists?
On the other hand, can anyone find a terrorist group Corby hasn't met members of, laid a wreath to commemorate, or been an apologist for at some point in his long career?
-
But - some sort of www regulation/control would add a layer of complexity for jihadi wannabe fanboi's to get information/get in touch with people/material/videos/instruction manuals etc.. But not a particularly effective layer of complexity.
Still, it would stop my mum accidentally finding the recipe for TATP....
Exactly, if you think back to when ISIS first appeared, images that were flashed up on mainstream news every few days were a propaganda coup for the nut jobs. Clips of captives in jump suits being beheaded, jihadi John etc. We no longer see clips like this, the press seems to acknowledge that some kind of censorship is/was needed.
If we look back over the last 5-10 years countless dispatches/panorama programmes have been made regarding Islamic radicalisation and links to Saudi/Pakistan. The money links need to be followed. Money needs to be shut off that supports radicalisation.
It's nothing major just joined up thinking, which seems to be absent.
Terrorism can't be beaten but we can put in place further steps to minimise young people from being brainwashed.
-
On the other hand, can anyone find a terrorist group Corby hasn't met members of, laid a wreath to commemorate, or been an apologist for at some point in his long career?
ISIS?
-
Again, the Big C man might not be my chosen PM candidate, but has he made any arms deals with the people who actually fund real terrorists?
On the other hand, can anyone find a terrorist group Corby hasn't met members of, laid a wreath to commemorate, or been an apologist for at some point in his long career?
[emoji848]
The Peoples Front for the Liberation of Judea, Black January Army of Justice Friday Army Faction?
BBC doesn't seem so Tory'centric lately:
'Give us more resources,' Met Police Commissioner says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40156799
-
One of the latest lot featured on a C4 doc called Jihadis next door, praying to an IS flag in a London park. Talk about hiding in plain sight. Maybe the Rozzers don't watch C4. :slap: TM is the most useless yet dangerous Home Sec/PM we've ever had. How people think JC would be worse I can't comprehend. :shrug:
-
One of the latest lot featured on a C4 doc called Jihadis next door, praying to an IS flag in a London park. Talk about hiding in plain sight. Maybe the Rozzers don't watch C4. :slap: TM is the most useless yet dangerous Home Sec/PM we've ever had. How people think JC would be worse I can't comprehend. :shrug:
Well, Dianne Abbott (I may have too many ddoouubbllee letters in there sorry) is the shadow home secretary - but I suspect if JC somehow gets in she will not be in that position...
As I think I posted before.. be wary - its the hope that kills you...
I'd (puts on Keegan voice) LOVE it if May loses the Tory majority, but I bet they'll win...
-
So... This is real.
I blanked the names myself.
Just screen capped it from Polly's timeline.
Remember, these people can vote.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/eb986daff42eeda26fcf66063b1f363f.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170605/1c16313e176edc2289db3a3eaa127cc8.jpg)
5 comments before the op pointed out that the bombers were already dead. 5 (five).
Was that "Cheb Ends" TT?
-
Watch this to the end. I don't 'think' it's a spoof...
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gt7lWRtfve8
-
On the other hand, can anyone find a terrorist group Corby hasn't met members of, laid a wreath to commemorate, or been an apologist for at some point in his long career?
ISIS?
Supporters of should not be prosecuted for expressing their valid political beliefs, I think was one of his from around 2014, with reference to ISIL fighters returning to the UK...
Given the choice between the omnishambles of the tory campaign and JC, I am baffled why smaller parties aren't doing better in the polls (other than that the only media coverage I can recall of anyone outside Labour, Tory or SNP is Tim Farron refusing to say homosexuality isn't a sin...)
-
On the other hand, can anyone find a terrorist group Corby hasn't met members of, laid a wreath to commemorate, or been an apologist for at some point in his long career?
ISIS?
Supporters of should not be prosecuted for expressing their valid political beliefs, I think was one of his from around 2014, with reference to ISIL fighters returning to the UK...
Given the choice between the omnishambles of the tory campaign and JC, I am baffled why smaller parties aren't doing better in the polls (other than that the only media coverage I can recall of anyone outside Labour, Tory or SNP is Tim Farron refusing to say homosexuality isn't a sin...)
I suspect there is a lot of nose holding going on.
-
On the other hand, can anyone find a terrorist group Corby hasn't met members of, laid a wreath to commemorate, or been an apologist for at some point in his long career?
ISIS?
Supporters of should not be prosecuted for expressing their valid political beliefs, I think was one of his from around 2014, with reference to ISIL fighters returning to the UK...
Given the choice between the omnishambles of the tory campaign and JC, I am baffled why smaller parties aren't doing better in the polls (other than that the only media coverage I can recall of anyone outside Labour, Tory or SNP is Tim Farron refusing to say homosexuality isn't a sin...)
I suspect there is a lot of nose holding going on.
TBH, I'm really not fussed whether Tim Farron likes holding his nose or scraping a cheese grater over his cock...
-
For OMM especially - why Qatar has been blacklisted... Seems they paid a $1bn 'ransom' to Iran/Terrorist groups.
Good work by the FT here: https://www.ft.com/content/dd033082-49e9-11e7-a3f4-c742b9791d43
-
I'd (puts on Keegan voice) LOVE it if May loses the Tory majority, but I bet they'll win...
Indeed. Sorry to keep banging this drum but the bookies still have Conservative Majority as a sizable odds-on chance (1/5 with 365 when I looked).
I have done some "emotional hedging" on various flavours of massive majorities.
-
Wasn't noBrexit and Clinton both odds on too? (NoBrexit certainly was)
-
There's no chance they will lose. My gut says people vote for those they see as "firm" when they are scared and they are scared right now.
Thanks Tom, not got into the papers today, bit of an overdose yesterday...
Rumour mill continues to grind however, nothing new though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Wasn't noBrexit and Clinton both odds on too? (NoBrexit certainly was)
Yes - Brexit was a big price (9/1 IIRC pre-first ballot result). One of my old colleagues lost 250 quid backing Remain as it was "such a sure thing". Bet he had some explaining to do to the missus.
I actually emotionally hedged Trump at 4/1 for a tenner. Donated the winnings 50/50 to Syrian refugee / woman's rights charities. Made me feel a tiny bit better about the actual result.
If I end up making profits from my UK election bets I'll be sending them to the Working Class Movement Library.
-
Interesting theory on the sudden election u-turn:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthony-barnet/why-is-she-frit
-
Wasn't noBrexit and Clinton both odds on too? (NoBrexit certainly was)
Yes - Brexit was a big price (9/1 IIRC pre-first ballot result). One of my old colleagues lost 250 quid backing Remain as it was "such a sure thing". Bet he had some explaining to do to the missus.
I actually emotionally hedged Trump at 4/1 for a tenner. Donated the winnings 50/50 to Syrian refugee / woman's rights charities. Made me feel a tiny bit better about the actual result.
If I end up making profits from my UK election bets I'll be sending them to the Working Class Movement Library.
Polls are always right, yeah?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-poll-latest-tories-majority-seats-short-labour-votes-yougov-model-conservatives-a7774961.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Can't deny that there is apparent value in betting against Tories (or at least the majority) based on the polls. I think you can back a minority Tory govt at about 5/1 or something which is probably a decent bet.
I just think that based on last election, it looked close but somehow a load of Shy Tories seemed to be out there that weren't accounted for. I think as a rule that polls overly skew towards the lefty/liberal end, and undercount the rightward-leaning options.
I mean, who in their right mind (no pun intended) would want to openly admit they are a Tory?
-
Interesting theory on the sudden election u-turn:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthony-barnet/why-is-she-frit
Definitely a possibility. As it says there, the actual "reasons" May gave were ludicrous! Thanks for link to that site btw, never seen it. Don't have a view on rest of content yet but have read one other article which makes me think it might be a good one: https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/magic-money-tree-dont-let-politicians-tell-otherwise/ (https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/magic-money-tree-dont-let-politicians-tell-otherwise/) I scream this at the telly every time I hear a Tory say "where's the money coming from?"! It comes from a spreadsheet at the Bank of England. The function of taxation is not to raise revenues for spending and the fact that politicians continually get away with this lie is a scandal. Along with other nonsense such as "leaving debt for our children's generation". In and of itself government debt (in your own currency) is neither here nor there, and running a deficit can be a good thing. Politicians either don't know that (possible when you hear them) or don't mention it as it undermines their ideology.
Good article from Gary Younge today in Guardian, calling out the Corbyn "unelectable" nonsense meme. Mind you its easier to say so in hindsight. Although plenty of people, including on here, have believed it for quite a while: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/jeremy-corbyn-unelectable-political-climate (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/jeremy-corbyn-unelectable-political-climate)
-
Can't deny that there is apparent value in betting against Tories (or at least the majority) based on the polls. I think you can back a minority Tory govt at about 5/1 or something which is probably a decent bet.
I just think that based on last election, it looked close but somehow a load of Shy Tories seemed to be out there that weren't accounted for. I think as a rule that polls overly skew towards the lefty/liberal end, and undercount the rightward-leaning options.
I mean, who in their right mind (no pun intended) would want to openly admit they are a Tory?
Brexit went all the way up to 13/1 shortly before Sunderland declared. Earlier on in the day, it was something like 3/1.
With the right timing, you could have retired off the winnings if brexit occurred and still broken even if it had come up remain.
I foolishly didn't make any bets despite predicting the odds would shift rapidly as the referendum approached.
I haven't learned my lesson either, should probably have guessed the odds would get closer as we approached this election.
Hindsight, eh?
-
10,000 at Gateshead, quite a turn out.
Fucking amazing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=34odHCICaVU (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=34odHCICaVU)
-
All a waste of time, as Abbott seems hell bent on sabotaging his chances.
And this despite the Tories fielding a part trained, flatulent Orangutan called BoJo...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
All a waste of time, as Abbott seems hell bent on sabotaging his chances.
And this despite the Tories fielding a part trained, flatulent Orangutan called BoJo...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am pretty sure you are right, but still feel that there will be shocks for lab and Cons on Thursday. However it doesn't seem like a waste of time for the people in Gateshead. That is some political gathering.
Abbott who, I think you mean Diane rather than Russ. Yep shes a walking disaster. What about our great chancellor "safe hands" phammond, where did he go. Did May send him to the bank of England with his abacus to count up money in the vaults for being a naughty boy. Could be chilaxing in some tax haven or off caravaning with David "the caravan" Cameron.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-spends-25000-posh-10328231 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-spends-25000-posh-10328231)
-
I hope everyone has seen this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7iUYWMD77w
-
:lol: That sums things up rather nicely.
-
Thank god for cassetteboy, I was about to vote for Greg Knight.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gt7lWRtfve8
-
Awfully decent of his dad to lend him a suit jacket.
-
Awfully decent of his dad to lend him a suit jacket.
I suspect he took it off the body, before they sealed the coffin...
-
Can't deny that there is apparent value in betting against Tories (or at least the majority) based on the polls. I think you can back a minority Tory govt at about 5/1 or something which is probably a decent bet.
I just think that based on last election, it looked close but somehow a load of Shy Tories seemed to be out there that weren't accounted for. I think as a rule that polls overly skew towards the lefty/liberal end, and undercount the rightward-leaning options.
I mean, who in their right mind (no pun intended) would want to openly admit they are a Tory?
Brexit went all the way up to 13/1 shortly before Sunderland declared. Earlier on in the day, it was something like 3/1.
With the right timing, you could have retired off the winnings if brexit occurred and still broken even if it had come up remain.
I foolishly didn't make any bets despite predicting the odds would shift rapidly as the referendum approached.
I haven't learned my lesson either, should probably have guessed the odds would get closer as we approached this election.
Hindsight, eh?
As we used to say at [name redacted - my previous employer (and large UK bookies)], retrospective betting is the most popular form!
I was talking to my other half about this theoretical scenario last night, which I think is eminently possible (and also terrifying at the same time)...I'm calling this now so I can say "I told you so" later:
- Tories win (sizeable lead / slim majority)
- "Big beasts" rumbling about Maybot's calling of election, not pushing home advantage
- Maybot resigns / gets the boot
- BoJo PM
So we'll have been round in a massive circle, to end up with a Tory govt with a similar sized majority, and an unelected PM.
Then of course, the Brexit omnishambles begins...
-
Would BJ be any worse than Maybot? I know it's a race to the bottom but...
-
Who'd have thought it would be possible to look back on Cameron and think "good times"?
-
Would BJ be any worse than Maybot? I know it's a race to the bottom but...
both lapdogs who will toe whichever line they need to win popularity, as bad as each other.
On the other hand you have JC who is pushing for what he believes, there's the real strong and stable. I really am considering voting Labour although I can't see it making much difference in my constituency.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Who'd have thought it would be possible to look back on Cameron and think "good times"?
Not me. Think Cameron, think "This is all your fault, dickhead".
-
Obvs but the point is although not great at the time things were much better in 2010-2015 than they are now and then they will be if the tories get in again.
-
That was under the coalition, look what happened when they regained full control
-
Would BJ be any worse than Maybot? I know it's a race to the bottom but...
I strongly suspect that under the Billy Bunter /Bunny Corcoran #massivelegend exterior is a deeply, deeply unpleasant human being.
-
That was under the coalition, look what happened when they regained full control
Exactly - but that was all the LibDem's fault right?
BJ - like you say, under the wafer thin panel show buffoon exterior is as prize an example of a fuck-everyone-else self-serving ultimate Tory as you're likely to find. #CUNT
-
Too late?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-labour-replaced-sacked-lyn-brown-general-election-2017-jeremy-corbyn-a7776491.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The thing that I find most infuriating about Boris (who I loathe more and more every day, not least because he by far the most effective of the brexit* liars) is that, it wasn't that long ago that he was a fairly ineffectual journalist, editor of the Spectator, etc, without much of a profile at all.
And then a supposedly liberal / satirical / anti establishment TV show - HIGNFY - repeatedly gave him a platform for him to perfect his jolly buffoon performance and allowed him to become so popular.
There are countless descriptions of him, as mayor, behaving extremely aggressively and unpleasantly behind closed doors. That Eddie Mair interview (you're not a very nice man, etc) would've destroyed a lot of lesser performers, but to him it was like water off a ducks back.
* I was honestly optimistic that, whilst brexit was the wrong decision, that it could'be been handled in a non-disastrous way. But the degree that May / Hill / Timothy have focused on appealing almost exclusively to UKIP grannies is totally infuriating.
-
10,000 at Gateshead, quite a turn out.
Fucking amazing
I'm a bit concerned that it's all a bit too "Michael Foot in 1983", massive turn out at rallies but poor performance at the polls. There is a chance that the increase in Labour support is in current Labour strong seats and is unfortunately wasted, if the support isn't in the right seats, it doesn't matter. If only we'd had a referendum on electoral reform......
Despite everything that has gone on, there are still a depressing number of people in my office still spouting the "You can't trust Corbyn with the economy/He's a terrorist sympathiser/he would nuke the Russians" style phrases whilst still thinking May is a strong and stable modern Thatcher.
-
I also read a very depressing article about the chronic over-reading of younger voters (and therefore Labour) / under-estimation of older voters built into the assumptions underlying both polls.
As Yossarian said, the thousands that turn out for the rallies are the converted, and will be far, far outweighed by the shy Tories / swivel-eyed loonies / turkeys voting for Christmas.
I am happy to be disappointed but I am resolutely not getting my hopes up.
-
Don't forget most Tory voters aren't allowed out of the retirement home to attend rallies.
-
As Yossarian said, the thousands that turn out for the rallies are the converted, and will be far, far outweighed by the shy Tories / swivel-eyed loonies / turkeys voting for Christmas.
I am happy to be disappointed but I am resolutely not getting my hopes up.
That was Galpinos, but I agree. John Prescott pointed out how many thousands more people are out at Corbyn's rallies than there were in 1997. But they won 418 seats not by appealing to the already highly engaged, but to the not particularly bothered either way middle.
This was an interesting article in the Independent the other day - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-right-wing-blairite-sellout-who-offers-no-alternative-to-the-tories-a7770831.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-right-wing-blairite-sellout-who-offers-no-alternative-to-the-tories-a7770831.html)
Glancing at my Twitter feed this morning, it has been pointed out a few times that, despite the huge social media noise about the (truly) atrocious Tory campaign, their support has remained fairly consistent, and Labour's off-and-on (but on balance, pretty reasonable) campaign has probably had little effect in that their increasing support is probably down to angry core voters relenting to back the team, not the captain.
-
I am happy to be disappointed but I am resolutely not getting my hopes up.
I'm hoping for the best but fearing the worst.......
-
Who'd have thought it would be possible to look back on Cameron and think "good times"?
Amazingly, the same can genuinely be said of Dubya
-
Who'd have thought it would be possible to look back on Cameron and think "good times"?
Amazingly, the same can genuinely be said of Dubya
Unless you're from the Middle East I suppose.
-
Some interesting observations from a mate regarding a constituency-by-constituency chances of success, and the odds available out there. Looks like there's a bit of value if anyone fancies a punt.
Link here - sure Slackbot will be along with a view on it!
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/newseatlookup.html (http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/newseatlookup.html)
They've got:
- Gower - Labour win 54% vs 2/1 available
- Edinburgh West - Tory win 44% chance vs 10/1 available
- Fife North East - Tory win 51% chance vs 14/1 available
And nai - you can get around 7/5 on Labour ousting Nick Clegg.
-
Interesting that, gives my seat as a potential Lab win.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Sheffield+Hallam
I was assuming it would be a fairly safe LibDem (Cleggy) done deal. Therefore standard tactical voting protocol would have dictated that I vote LibDem, but I suppose since the Tories have no chance here that I should actually vote Lab this time with no real risk.
-
Who'd have thought it would be possible to look back on Cameron and think "good times"?
Amazingly, the same can genuinely be said of Dubya
Unless you're from the Middle East I suppose.
Well, there is that ...
-
Confession: for the first time in my life I won't be voting in a general election. Its not that I don't care or that I don't think the stakes are very high - they clearly are, as high as at any election in my adult life. In part, I simply failed to get my overseas vote arranged in time. But that I didn't get it together probably says something. Labour won the constituency in which I'm registered to vote (Halton) in 2015 with a majority of nearly 20,300. There was a 5+% swing to Labour. It is unimaginable that Labour won't win this seat. Given the disincentives I'm almost surprised any Tory voters bother to turn out. At the same time, I strongly disapprove of elements of the sitting Labour MP's voting record (for example, he voted against marriage equality). I voted Green in 2015 but they aren't fielding a candidate this year. The Lib Dems are irrelevant.
I am very far from proud that I won't be voting, and I am rightly catching hell from my 19 year old daughter who will be voting in her first general election (she was able to vote in the referendum), but there must be many, many voters such as me who are utterly powerless to influence the outcome at either the local or national level. Its hardly news, but the system is broken.
I desperately hope for a Labour victory on Thursday (hypocritical, I know) but am pessimistic.
-
Sort of grudging respect to the guy I saw on my way to work today walking down the street wearing a big blue rosette and loftily ignoring the swearing, spitting and gesticulating. V. brave or V.stupid.
-
While out for a walk with the family on Monday I happened on our Tory candidate, Ann Myatt handing out propaganda.
This is the Ann Myatt responsible for this - in Jo Cox's constituency:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-ann-myatt-jo-cox-batley-spen-nobodys-been-shot-yet-joke-hustings-conservatives-tories-a7761981.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-ann-myatt-jo-cox-batley-spen-nobodys-been-shot-yet-joke-hustings-conservatives-tories-a7761981.html)
When I heard about this I was totally shocked. I was going to say something to her on Sunday but really couldn't think what to say about it.
-
Interesting that, gives my seat as a potential Lab win.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Sheffield+Hallam
I was assuming it would be a fairly safe LibDem (Cleggy) done deal. Therefore standard tactical voting protocol would have dictated that I vote LibDem, but I suppose since the Tories have no chance here that I should actually vote Lab this time with no real risk.
be nice to see that last bit of non-Labour South Yorkshire coloured red
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituency2010Results.svg/319px-SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituency2010Results.svg.png)
-
I rather like this page
https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/#/uk-elections-constituency-search-anchor
yougov are one of the pollsters who seem to believe in the young turning out though...
-
Interesting that, gives my seat as a potential Lab win.
I was assuming it would be a fairly safe LibDem (Cleggy) done deal. Therefore standard tactical voting protocol would have dictated that I vote LibDem, but I suppose since the Tories have no chance here that I should actually vote Lab this time with no real risk.
I will definitely not be voting Labour in Sheffield Hallam. Nationally, Labour cannot win outright unless there is some miracle turnaround in Scotland. Therefore the best we can hope for is a rainbow coalition of the left. I can't think of another MP who will bring more valuable recent experience to that coalition than Clegg.
I was planning to vote Green but am a bit conflicted due to this. I don't think another inexperienced Labour MP would have much to offer in comparison, and locally the Labour council (as witnessed by the Amey Tree 'care' contract) is verging on the rotten.
Edit:
be nice to see that last bit of non-Labour South Yorkshire coloured red
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituency2010Results.svg/319px-SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituency2010Results.svg.png)
As above, no thanks. Not being a rabid FPTP supporter I'd like to see as much diversity represented as possible. Ideally Sheff Central might go Green too.
-
Depending on Clegg for a rainbow coalition - hmm what could possibly go wrong there.
-
More seriously both Lab & the LDs have stated that there won't be any rainbow coalition & Corbyn, for better or worse, simply doesn't seem able to lie.
-
Clearly this is complete bollocks. If the Tories are a few short the DUP might help them struggle on, but no one else will touch them in a coalition.
-
Clearly this is complete bollocks. If the Tories are a few short the DUP might help them struggle on, but no one else will touch them in a coalition.
Let's hope that
a) they are a few short
and
b) you're correct
-
Interesting that, gives my seat as a potential Lab win.
I was assuming it would be a fairly safe LibDem (Cleggy) done deal. Therefore standard tactical voting protocol would have dictated that I vote LibDem, but I suppose since the Tories have no chance here that I should actually vote Lab this time with no real risk.
I will definitely not be voting Labour in Sheffield Hallam. Nationally, Labour cannot win outright unless there is some miracle turnaround in Scotland. Therefore the best we can hope for is a rainbow coalition of the left. I can't think of another MP who will bring more valuable recent experience to that coalition than Clegg.
I was planning to vote Green but am a bit conflicted due to this. I don't think another inexperienced Labour MP would have much to offer in comparison, and locally the Labour council (as witnessed by the Amey Tree 'care' contract) is verging on the rotten.
Yeah this is my issue too, on a non-partisan level I have no problem being represented by Clegg. He's one of the few talking sense on Europe, and is very experienced.
Although various parties have said they won't go into coalitions, surely what's more likely is one party sits as a minority gov and then policies get passed on a case-by-case basis, based on loose agreements. You know, like plenty of other countries do. In many ways this could be the best possible outcome, since it might break the two-party system down for good.
-
Agree it would be nice but there doesn't seem to be much precedent for that in the UK, and the the press would go apeshit, "We need Strong and stable, strong and stable!!!".
PR would of course remove our issues of being unsure whether to vote for who we want to vote for, so I'm tempted to vote whichever way makes that more likely. Which is Clegg again.
-
That does seem to be the most likely result.
Worryingly that could possibly mean a minority Tory govt which I fear Labour might support on Brexit issues.
The rest of it's policies - (basically austerity) remain largely unchanged from those of the coalition.
I'm fairly certain that Lab, Plaid the SNP, Greens will oppose that. I'm much less certain about the Lib-Dems.
-
After the last two years the Lib Dems won't touch them with a barge pole. And that's before you consider Brexit.
-
After the last two years the Lib Dems won't touch them with a barge pole. And that's before you consider Brexit.
Again I hope that you're right but bear in mind Farron or whoever would have to answer questions , from a hostile media like
"Mr Farron only a year ago you and your party fully supported xxx saying it was the best thing for the country - how do you now justify using a 3-line whip to force yor MPs to oppose exactly the same policy? Either you were wrong then or you're wrong now. Which is it? "
it wouldn't look good would it.?
-
I think it'll be the SNP that gets that scrutiny. LDs will be a minor player. Or it will be easy enough for them to say 'we were forced into it by the tories'.
-
LDs will be a minor player.
That would be the point for me. Athough their Brexit policy is slightly less nonsensical than most they won't be big enough to oppose this if Lab back it & a few MPs more or less won't change that.
So there seems little point taking the risk,however small you judge it of them propping up the Tories again.
Judging by the polling figures I may not be alone in reaching that conclusion.
BTW this is a horrible way to have to decide how to vote - which party is likely to result in the least damage but that's where we seem to be. in my area I seem to have no option but to vote for a party whose policy on the most important issue of the day is simply dribbling nonsense.
-
The risk of them propping up the tories is nil. It was a disaster last time and the LDs flagship stance on Brexit is utterly at odds with the Tories direction since.
A strong LD, SDP and Green component to a left coalition will ensure a second referendum on any Brexit deal.
It does look more likely the Cons will win a slim overall majority though.
-
The risk of them propping up the tories is nil. It was a disaster last time and the LDs flagship stance on Brexit is utterly at odds with their direction since.
A strong LD, SDP and Green component to a left coalition will ensure a second referendum on any deal.
It does look more likely the Cons will win a slim overall majority though.
-
there must be many, many voters such as me who are utterly powerless to influence the outcome at either the local or national level. Its hardly news, but the system is broken.
I have voted in every local and national election and every referendum since I turned 18. Every single time, the person or policy that I have voted for has lost.
My vote is a complete waste of time, largely because of the constituencies I have lived in. If I don't move constituencies, I can't see my vote mattering for at least a generation.
I'll keep on voting in case it influences people's tactical voting in some distant future election but I always feel conflicted when I go to vote as it feels like I am assisting propping up a broken system.
Apparently this is democracy.
-
The risk of them propping up the tories is nil. It was a disaster last time and the LDs flagship stance on Brexit is utterly at odds with the Tories direction since.
A strong LD, SDP and Green component to a left coalition will ensure a second referendum on any Brexit deal.
It does look more likely the Cons will win a slim overall majority though.
This.
Please.
Except the last bit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So Nick Clegg just knocked on the door. He wasn't going to every door, just the waiverers I guess. I assume he read on ukb earlier that I was considering Labour?
Basically, don't get your hopes up, the Tories are going to romp home.
-
So Nick Clegg just knocked on the door. He wasn't going to every door, just the waiverers I guess. I assume he read on ukb earlier that I was considering Labour?
Basically, don't get your hopes up, the Tories are going to romp home.
Latest polls put May on a 74 seat majority, largest since Thatcher.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Quite an interesting read:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/uk-politics/general-election-2017-final-predictions-070617-171.html?mi_u=6554861
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
So Nick Clegg just knocked on the door. He wasn't going to every door, just the waiverers I guess. I assume he read on ukb earlier that I was considering Labour?
Basically, don't get your hopes up, the Tories are going to romp home.
Latest polls put May on a 74 seat majority, largest since Thatcher.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jeez does anyone take any notice of the polls anymore? People lie.
-
So Nick Clegg just knocked on the door. He wasn't going to every door, just the waiverers I guess. I assume he read on ukb earlier that I was considering Labour?
Basically, don't get your hopes up, the Tories are going to romp home.
Latest polls put May on a 74 seat majority, largest since Thatcher.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Worth a watch, the politics of hope has driven thousands out to the big rallies to listen the JC. Win or lose tomorrow, hope will prevail in the end.
The wheel I am sure is turning, slowly but it is turning.
The same message presented by somebody without as much baggage would be a sure fire winner in my book.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/07/britain-transformed-election-what-on-earth-is-going-on-video (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/07/britain-transformed-election-what-on-earth-is-going-on-video)
In terms of predictions, head says Tory win, don't think it will be massive majority.
Cons may lose some big seats, think pensions, dementia tax etc will have affect.
So not a clean sweep everybody was thinking 5-6 weeks ago.
Although my guesses were wrong about last election/Brexit.
Heart says keep fingers crossed for non conservative win or failing this hung parliament.
-
Hmmm...
I feel a bit bad now, reading this; realised how little I knew about Abbott.
https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/
Thanks to Gaz P for sharing.
-
Hmmm...
I feel a bit bad now, reading this; realised how little I knew about Abbott.
https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/
Thanks to Gaz P for sharing.
Fantastic, thank you for sharing. Oldmanmatt.
-
1. Nai, did you stink palm cleggy?
2. Grauniad showed results from 10 polls from yesterday/today - results went from hung parliament to Tory majority of 100.
Go figure.
-
interesting piece on the 538 about this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/)
the take-home is that polls for UK polls are historically inaccurate (twice as much as polls in other Western countries) - with a difference reason cited after every election - "last minute swing", "shy tories", "herding of polls". The take home conclusion::
" Focus on the polling average — Conservatives ahead by 7 points — rather than only the polls you like. But assume there’s a wide range of outcomes and that the errors are equally likely to come in either direction. Given the poor historical accuracy of U.K. polls, in fact, the true margin of error on the Labour-Conservative margin is plus or minus 10 points. That would imply that anything from a 17-point Conservative win to a 3-point Labour win is possible. And even an average polling error would make the difference between May expanding her majority and losing it."
.... come Thursday night, prepare for anything....
-
Ok. So my plan for Thursday.
Sit down - 10:01pm. Check the result of the exit poll on the BBC.
Scenarios:
1. Tory landslide (>50 majority). Telly off, Go to bed.
2. Status Quo: stay up til midnight and see if any changes
3. Hung parliament. I probably won't sleep much...
-
Ok. So my plan for Thursday.
Sit down - 10:01pm. Check the result of the exit poll on the BBC.
Scenarios:
2. Status Quo: stay up til midnight and see if any changes
Up til midnight, staying classy with the Quo, who'd of thought it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OVr9mHlUOuw (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OVr9mHlUOuw)
"Whatever you want" should have been the official lab/Jc election tune. :punk:
-
Living on an Island more like.
-
This is how you meet the voters, make sure they aren't in.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T4PEEUAvWtg (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T4PEEUAvWtg)
-
Just went to vote. At the door of the polling station there was a guy with a LibDem rosette with a notepad asking for people's polling numbers. Are they allowed to do this?
-
It's fine as far as I'm aware. They do it so they can cross off their registered supporters and members as they turn up. Any still on the list at the end of the day get a nagging phone call to remind them how important it is to vote.
-
Safe, just never seen one before, and I know there are strict rules on that type of thing.
-
I was planning to vote Green but am a bit conflicted due to this. I don't think another inexperienced Labour MP would have much to offer in comparison, and locally the Labour council (as witnessed by the Amey Tree 'care' contract) is verging on the rotten.
Clegg bares some of the blame for this, he's responsible for the PFI that ultimately brought in Amey.
-
Interesting, you got a link? I'm on the facebook tree group but this is the first I've heard.
-
Interesting, you got a link? I'm on the facebook tree group but this is the first I've heard.
I thought this was general knowledge, Sheffield wouldn't have got this money if Clegg hadn't been deputy prime minister.
If you believe Cleggs own website (http://www.nickclegg.org.uk/fixing_roads) then Clegg is the saviour of Sheffield roads. (http://www.nickclegg.org.uk/roads) If he's taking the credit here surely has to take some responsibility for the results. Labour council obviously still made a few f ups along the way.
-
The Sheffield tree campaign has resulted in a lot of mud slinging - from both sides, resulting in a lot of bad press and bad feeling, which has probably harmed negotiation. It's not easy for Sheffield CC to re-negotiate the roads contract with Amey. There are some at the council who I'd say have definitely obstructed dialogue over negotiation around tree management, but in the interests of objectivity, I'd also say that I think it's wrong to say that Julie Dore (Council leader) hasn't tried to find a solution. AFAIK she has discussed the matter with other councils. I'm not saying that someone else wouldn't try harder to find a solution, but I think it's right to be wary of placing undue blame for the fiasco (potential disaster) with the trees, squarely with the current council. The trees are also a convenient political football, and for that reason, I'm not convinced that some people haven't wanted to look for more conflict than resolution. Just saying ;-)
-
More importantly my voting station today was in a pub. Result.
-
So Nick Clegg just knocked on the door. He wasn't going to every door, just the waiverers I guess. I assume he read on ukb earlier that I was considering Labour?
And the Labour candidate has just phoned me. Guess the Teller with the huge yellow rosette on the door of the polling station isn't sharing his beta.
Didn't sound as assured as Cleggster, maybe a little paniced.
Must be pretty tight.
-
From the Times today. Editorial.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170608/f4c40366b7f06255e7278838f11bcf9e.jpg)
-
I registered for postal vote to avoid potential difficulties, so when they gave us 24 hrs notice that they were going to close my daughter's school due to concerns about safety (the poling station is there) I was doubly pissed off.
-
Thanks for link to that site btw, never seen it. Don't have a view on rest of content yet but have read one other article which makes me think it might be a good one:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/forty-years-of-failure-how-to-challenge-narrative-of-hard-brexit (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/forty-years-of-failure-how-to-challenge-narrative-of-hard-brexit)
This is a good one too.
-
A very good read. I will work my way through the associated links later. Ta.
-
Exit polls - possible hung parliament
No overall majority.
The best of all worlds?
Tories can carry the can.
Casualties across the board
-
Come on! The (not very) Independent ran two stories in less than an hour, one claiming everyone had vastly underestimated the "Shy Tory" vote and a landslide was imminent and then jumped on the Exit poll wagon 35 minutes later...
See you in the morning.
Will it be coffee and a wry grin, or a shot of Vodka and back to bed for five years?
-
Who's staying up then?
-
:popcorn:
-
:popcorn: :alky:
-
Sparkling water here :)
-
And trying to Juggle tv, Facebook, ukb and two twitter accounts :)
-
I'm preferring ITVs coverage to BBC, if only to enjoy watching Osborne eviscerating TM.
Second thing I've enjoyed has been Gary Lineakers tweet
-
flicking between Channel 4, BBC and funny animal GIFs.
-
Breakfast means breakfast.
May will be waking up to a cold breakfast
Good to see tories with egg on their face.
Bozzer the next PM?
Ah Brexit, what's that.
-
Well well well.. first time I've woken up on an election morning in a good mood!
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
.
-
:clap2:
-
I might post this question here as well:
For free and fair elections I tend to use the uninformed prior: i.e. that the outcome is 50/50, but that this can be updated closer to the election as people prepare themselves for voting and polling improves. Can someone explain why everyone is so sure that this election is very lopsided in favour of the tories? The voters have had 0 days to make up their mind so far.
Give people time, and they might change their opinion.
-
Same here - went to bed at 11 trying to be pessimistic. Just picked up a series of increasingly delighted messages from my dad who evidently went to bed an hour ago . . .
-
Yes!
-
I might post this question here as well:
For free and fair elections I tend to use the uninformed prior: i.e. that the outcome is 50/50, but that this can be updated closer to the election as people prepare themselves for voting and polling improves. Can someone explain why everyone is so sure that this election is very lopsided in favour of the tories? The voters have had 0 days to make up their mind so far.
Give people time, and they might change their opinion.
I just came here to congratulate you on this post, but I see you've done it for me. ;)
-
I might post this question here as well:
For free and fair elections I tend to use the uninformed prior: i.e. that the outcome is 50/50, but that this can be updated closer to the election as people prepare themselves for voting and polling improves. Can someone explain why everyone is so sure that this election is very lopsided in favour of the tories? The voters have had 0 days to make up their mind so far.
Give people time, and they might change their opinion.
Give people a second re-run election, they might even change their opinion again.
Whilst there are elements of relief in this result, the trajectory for exiting the EU looks ominous. I suspect the history books will judge the Tory administration since 2010 very harshly.
-
So, predictions? Con and DUP coalition, led by... Gove? Lots of confused first time voters who have been celebrating Corbyn's 'win'. Warm words from Cons about being more centrist, little action. How along til the next election? I can't see another one now achieving much different.
Good news, even Farage is talking about a second referendum. I think I prefer the real Brexit car crash to happen with the Tories at the wheel.
-
I suspect the history books will judge the Tory administration since 2010 very harshly.
Yes, shooting yourself in the foot once (EU referendum) could be seen as unfortunate. Doing so again on the eve of the Brexit negotiations is incompetence.
-
I just came here to congratulate you on this post, but I see you've done it for me. ;)
Smug and self-satisfied, that's me. :)
-
You couldn't make it up if you tried.
Then:
May: "Beware the Terrorist sympathisers !! Panic! Panic!"
Now:
Wants to form coalition with actual political wing of Terrorist organisation (it's ok though, they're "Loyalist" Terrorists, the nice kind).
FFS.
-
Let's not fuck about, in the face of the majority of papers being Tory backers, and the bias of the BBC coverage of Corbyn, and half the parliamentary labour party being on his back from day one, this is nothing short of an absolute triumph for Corbyn. If for example that reptile Murdoch had been onside like in 1997 (not that I want him on side) it would have been an absolute landslide. Complete and utter disaster for May and the Tories.
Plus I made £70.
-
https://media.giphy.com/media/v6hN7PzmrE5Jm/giphy.gif (https://media.giphy.com/media/v6hN7PzmrE5Jm/giphy.gif)
Who's laughing now!!!
Big question why did Tory vote increase in Scotland/Wales?
Although the election will go down as a Labour loss, it kind of feels like a win.
After everything that has gone on over the last couple of months a positive result?
Sometimes it is better the devil you know, the big sharks are swimming around and can sense blood - bozzer, grove, rudd- things could get worse before they get better.
EU negotiators will be laughing their heads off, Britain can't get it's shit together.
-
I might post this question here as well:
For free and fair elections I tend to use the uninformed prior: i.e. that the outcome is 50/50, but that this can be updated closer to the election as people prepare themselves for voting and polling improves. Can someone explain why everyone is so sure that this election is very lopsided in favour of the tories? The voters have had 0 days to make up their mind so far.
Give people time, and they might change their opinion.
Give people a second re-run election, they might even change their opinion again.
Whilst there are elements of relief in this result, the trajectory for exiting the EU looks ominous. I suspect the history books will judge the Tory administration since 2010 very harshly.
#weakandwobbly
-
Boom! Gave up at 4am :)
I recon Corbyn should try and form a minority government with one of the key items on the queens speech being introducing PR. Hoover up support of the small parties..
-
FPTP maintains the 2 party system. Why would Corbyn give that up?
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
-
Let's not fuck about, in the face of the majority of papers being Tory backers, and the bias of the BBC coverage of Corbyn, and half the parliamentary labour party being on his back from day one, this is nothing short of an absolute triumph for Corbyn. If for example that reptile Murdoch had been onside like in 1997 (not that I want him on side) it would have been an absolute landslide. Complete and utter disaster for May and the Tories.
Plus I made £70.
That evil shit will be dead by the next election, or at least so feeble he'll be ineffective.
-
FPTP maintains the 2 party system. Why would Corbyn give that up?
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
I thought you lot said he was a fair minded man?
-
Let's not fuck about, in the face of the majority of papers being Tory backers, and the bias of the BBC coverage of Corbyn, and half the parliamentary labour party being on his back from day one, this is nothing short of an absolute triumph for Corbyn. If for example that reptile Murdoch had been onside like in 1997 (not that I want him on side) it would have been an absolute landslide. Complete and utter disaster for May and the Tories.
Plus I made £70.
Right, I've had very little sleep and am still pissed so I might be dreaming, but spot on Dave. Really don't want to say "I told you so" so I won't (except just there). But this is all Corbyn's, there's going to be a lot of humble pie getting scranned today by experts, pundits, journos, and labour MPs. Surprising number of trots, entryists, commies etc. all throughout the country.
-
Boom! Gave up at 4am :)
I recon Corbyn should try and form a minority government with one of the key items on the queens speech being introducing PR. Hoover up support of the small parties..
A progressive coalition.
Has a nice ring to it, in my mind.
Sturgeon is reaping the rewards of over egging her referendum, that's what pushed so many Scots to choose the party most likely to block a second ref.
Stop talking about a referendum and that blue tinge will evaporate.
-
This... (http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/06/09/all-hail-lord-buckethead-our-new-king/)
-
Went to bed at three (having switched to herbal tea several hours earlier - I didn't want a hangover like on Brexit day) thinking the Tories might have pipped it. Blimey what a triumph for Corbyn and a disaster for May. She's finished... The Torres have got some work to do over the next few years if that youth vote stays consistent. Off to work but looking forward to a weekend reading all the papers :)
-
An interesting thought, along with the rumour that Murdoch stormed out of the Times election party, in a tantrum, after the exit poll was announced:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/ade01851242e94b6d0756f0009ab75af.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm 100% behind Corbyn and accept that he has been thoroughly demonised by the mainstream press, but Another Angry Voice is a (digital) rag as guilty of ad hominems and hyperbole as some of the worst right-wing offenders.
-
An interesting thought, along with the rumour that Murdoch stormed out of the Times election party, in a tantrum, after the exit poll was announced:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/ade01851242e94b6d0756f0009ab75af.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
err the guardian and the indi?
I've read nothing from (let alone heard of some of) the publications he lists.
-
ConDUP coalition, I couldn't think of anything worse.
Hasn't the NI parliament collapsed because Sinn fein DUP could agree on things.
Cant see how the strong and stable thing could work out.
DUP could start an argument in a phone box!
-
Surely the DUP will force a soft brexit?
-
Surely the DUP will force a soft brexit?
The coalition of chaos
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/theresa-may-reaches-deal-with-dup-to-form-government-after-shock-election-result-northern-ireland (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/theresa-may-reaches-deal-with-dup-to-form-government-after-shock-election-result-northern-ireland)
We are all going to be in for a bumpy ride.
-
I don't know much about the DUP but saw this genius line on twitter:
Just seen someone describe the DUP manifesto as "basically just the bible, with fortnightly bin collections"
-
Surely the DUP will force a soft brexit?
I don't know enough about the DUP but I was under the impression that they had broadly similar plans.
I would have thought her own party (Clarke, Soubry etc) may be more effective in forcing a change in brexit policy. Without a majority, she will find it much harder to push things through if they threaten to rebel.
-
I think this could be a match made in heaven...
From Jan in the Independent
Power-sharing has collapsed in Northern Ireland, ending more than a decade of joint-rule between unionist and nationalist politicians.
Mr McGuinness resigned last Monday, citing concerns about the Democratic Unionist Party’s “arrogance” at how they had handled allegations of a financial scandal. The party’s leader, Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster, is implicated in a government scheme which was badly handled under her tenure.
The Renewable Heat Incentive scheme, which was set up in 2012, was designed to encourage local businesses to use renewable heat sources, however it appears to have been seriously flawed in its implementation and instead paid businesses money to pointlessly burn fuel. It is estimated that the affair has cost the tax payer more than £490 million.
One of Ms Foster’s party colleagues added further criticism when he alleged she had asked civil servants to alter documents in order to reduce the appearance of her role in the scheme. She denies the allegations.
Ms Foster denies any wrong doing and has refused calls to step down. Mr McGuinness therefore resigned on Monday. Under power-sharing rules, both politicians must govern jointly. Therefore, if one resigns, their counterpart also loses their position.
-
We just became a Theocracy, May the God Botherer-in-chief and the Monks of doom!
https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentOnline/posts/10154883268651636
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We just became a Theocracy, May the God Botherer-in-chief and the Monks of doom!
https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentOnline/posts/10154883268651636
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can just imagine hearing the hallow tone of St Teresea
"The country have given "me" the mandate I need to form a Brexit Government. I have been working with our partners in Northern Ireland the DUP to create a great democratic and patriotic alliance needed to steer us through these difficult times.
I wont be taking any questions at this time as I have very important Brexit meetings to attend today.
Finally I would like to thank once again the public of Great Britain for believing in me."
Hollow and empty rather than strong and stable.
-
"Of course, Northern Ireland has moved towards peace, and the DUP, like their opponents in Sinn Fein, have rescinded violence. As part of that process of normalisation, the fact that parties which include people who have rescinded violence can be brought into the normal democratic process is a good thing. But for the Tories to end an election campaign which they spent attacking Corbyn for his alleged links to former Northern Irish terrorists by going into coalition with a party founded by former Northern Irish terrorists would be a deep irony."
from https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/adam-ramsay/so-who-are-dup
-
The big losers last night were SNP. They just lost a huge amount of credibility and it has to stymie Indy ref 2...
-
Interesting that, gives my seat as a potential Lab win.
I was assuming it would be a fairly safe LibDem (Cleggy) done deal. Therefore standard tactical voting protocol would have dictated that I vote LibDem, but I suppose since the Tories have no chance here that I should actually vote Lab this time with no real risk.
I will definitely not be voting Labour in Sheffield Hallam. Nationally, Labour cannot win outright unless there is some miracle turnaround in Scotland. Therefore the best we can hope for is a rainbow coalition of the left. I can't think of another MP who will bring more valuable recent experience to that coalition than Clegg.
I was planning to vote Green but am a bit conflicted due to this. I don't think another inexperienced Labour MP would have much to offer in comparison, and locally the Labour council (as witnessed by the Amey Tree 'care' contract) is verging on the rotten.
Edit:
be nice to see that last bit of non-Labour South Yorkshire coloured red
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituency2010Results.svg/319px-SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituency2010Results.svg.png)
As above, no thanks. Not being a rabid FPTP supporter I'd like to see as much diversity represented as possible. Ideally Sheff Central might go Green too.
TV cameras are out in Nethergreen at the moment interviewing following Cleggs demise.
I was torn between Green and Labour (central ward) and in any other election would probably have voted Green. (as I'm not sure I particularly like Paul Blomfield)
However, I couldn't bring myself to moan about labours defeat if I'd not voted for them.
Whats slightly concerning is the tories got more votes in Central than the Greens by quite some margin.
Labour Paul Blomfield Votes 33,963 70.9 +15.9
Conservative Stephanie Roe Votes 6,215 13.0 +1.8
Green Party Natalie Bennett Votes 3,848 8.0 -7.8
Liberal Democrat Shaffaq Mohammed Votes 2,465 5.1 -4.5
UKIP Dominic Cook Votes 1,060 2.2 -5.2
Which I guess is down to former green voters moving to labour rather than the cons getting more of the vote.
-
Tories were up in Hallam too. I assume that's the Dore crowd mobilisin? I shouldn't be surprised really since it was a safe Tory seat prior to 1997.
-
Tories and labour up everywhere. Greens, ukip and to an extent libdems down everywhere. Greens would have hoped to have done better in central but this ain't no normal election.
What do you have against Blomfield? Everything I've ever read or heard about him suggests he very genuine, caring and local politician.
-
Bit fickle on my behalf really. He's just an incumbent that I don't see much evidence of local action. I also fell victim to blaming Labour for what I generally see as Sheffield City Council continuous stream of cock ups. Decades of no Road resurfacing, a generally poor city center experience, closure of Don Valley, Amey Contract (actually nick clegg as mentioned previously), etc etc etc.
Looking at his voting record now, I cant really find too much fault.
I vote green locally, we have a green councilor in sharrow and I see a lot of direct involvement.
I'm amazed at the Conservative Candidate (local address Twickenham) getting any votes. I'm not sure she's ever been to Sheffield. Last election, we had one bit of literature through the door and it was clear she'd got off the train, had a photo taken outside the train station, then got straight back on the first train down south.
-
The big losers last night were SNP. They just lost a huge amount of credibility and it has to stymie Indy ref 2...
Yeah, she really called that one wrong. If she was going to push for it, she chose the wrong time to do it, and should have waited until after the GE. Disenfranchised a lot of supporters.
-
Bit fickle on my behalf really. He's just an incumbent that I don't see much evidence of local action. I also fell victim to blaming Labour for what I generally see as Sheffield City Council continuous stream of cock ups. Decades of no Road resurfacing, a generally poor city center experience, closure of Don Valley, Amey Contract (actually nick clegg as mentioned previously), etc etc etc.
Looking at his voting record now, I cant really find too much fault.
I vote green locally, we have a green councilor in sharrow and I see a lot of direct involvement.
I see where you are coming from. I used to live on Edmund road, where Blomfield's office is, and had decided he must be shit, can't rememeber why, prob because labour lost an election. So I subscribed to his mailing list to find out and realised he was doing everything I wanted and more I just didn't know.
Caveat. Always voted green until yesterday.
-
On the other hand, Edmund Road is one of the few areas of Sheffield with barely any vegetation or green space, yet Blomfield allowed a beautiful avenue of cherry trees to be destroyed right on his doorstep.
-
So...
I'm now frantically trying to get a handle on the DUP.
This has to be a joke, I knew the woman was power hungry, but FFS! Way to go, you fucking lunatic bitch:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/aa74fbce476e139a0482ef1d1a0dab59.jpg)
-
Tories were up in Hallam too. I assume that's the Dore crowd mobilisin? I shouldn't be surprised really since it was a safe Tory seat prior to 1997.
wouldn't be so sure about that, I've only seen two placards compared to numerous labour and lib dems. The aging population aren't such a majority anymore, reckon there's too many Drs, nurses, teachers, police, etc for too much support around here.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Must be a lot of Tory voters living in those farms up on Long Line then! That's about the only place I see the blue signs.
-
SNP won NE Fife from LDs by 2 votes. You would be gutted if you hadn't bothered voting
-
SNP won NE Fife from LDs by 2 votes. You would be gutted if you hadn't bothered voting
Cost me £30 that result - I had a couple of quid on at 14/1.
-
So...
I'm now frantically trying to get a handle on the DUP.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/aa74fbce476e139a0482ef1d1a0dab59.jpg)
One positive is at least we will now have a nice new parliamentary marching band to look forward to. The Orange Order troupe will be putting in an appearance on Parliament's got Talent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s68jk8zdemw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s68jk8zdemw)
-
Just changed my FB cover picture to :
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/28323de1448c6475a5dd7bba0177b239.jpg)
The Tories piss me off.
The DUP?
I have never taken part in a street protest or riot. The very first hint of religiously motivated policy and I'll be throwing bricks.
-
The big losers last night were SNP. They just lost a huge amount of credibility and it has to stymie Indy ref 2...
Sorry I'm not following. (I'm actually baffled by the voting pattern in Scotland) Didn't
a) they win the majority of seats in Scotland
b) Independence is surely an issue for the Scottish parliament to decide so Westminster vote not really relevant.
-
Arlene Foster - "These are challenging times, and the U.K. and indeed our very way of life is under threat.. from extremists"
Too damn right arlene, to damn right... :wall: :no: :slap:
-
b) Independence is surely an issue for the Scottish parliament to decide so Westminster vote not really relevant.
You understand what protest voting is?
"Stop Indyref2" was the banner for most of the Scottish Tory Campaign.
If she doesn't have the backing of a majority of SMPs then she can't even petition for it. The view was the less SMPs there are the less chance of it happening.
-
b) Independence is surely an issue for the Scottish parliament to decide so Westminster vote not really relevant.
You understand what protest voting is?
"Stop Indyref2" was the banner for most of the Scottish Tory Campaign.
If she doesn't have the backing of a majority of SMPs then she can't even petition for it. The view was the less SMPs there are the less chance of it happening.
Nah still not following. Even if the SNP hadn't actually won the majority of Westminster seats in Scotland last night (which they did) then it could be argued that it was because this election wasn't about independence. Pro-independence voters could be voting for Lab or the LDs in the hope of avoiding a hard Brexit or even Tory in the hope that a hard Brexit would make Indyref2 more likely.
-
Well, they lost rather a lot of seats, so...
Anyway, the comedy gold is just steamrollering in today:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/5f9365fa2d4de410e27a29bc7ddd7e6b.jpg)
-
I'm feeling a bit depressed now after the highs of last night. A realisation that Maybot has taken some blows but not gone down yet.
-
I'm feeling a bit depressed now after the highs of last night. A realisation that Maybot has taken some blows but not gone down yet.
If Kuenssberg has deserted her, she fall soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It'll only take a few Tory MPs with enough backbone to take exception to the DUP hookup and go against the party whip on the queen's speech vote to cock things up. However if such a thing as a Tory MP with a backbone exists remains to be seen.
-
Yes - they're good at playing the game...
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170609/ff68d721f7723a234e9191ef7e9eea3a.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It'll only take a few Tory MPs with enough backbone to take exception to the DUP hookup and go against the party whip on the queen's speech vote to cock things up. However if such a thing as a Tory MP with a backbone exists remains to be seen.
A few may even cross the floor of the house perhaps?
-
I shared this last year when May won the leadership battle as it gives a good insight into her and her two loyal advisors. Worth reading again in the light of recent weeks.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n21/william-davies/home-office-rules (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n21/william-davies/home-office-rules)
-
Maybe. It may mean batshit stuff like grammar schools won't happen...
In the meantime, I'm going to email sloper :)
-
Honestly, I'm really convinced I've horribly maligned an actually quite good MP! Her constituents seem to love her:
https://www.indy100.com/article/diane-abbott-theresa-may-general-election-entire-vote-hackney-maidenhead-7781011
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My wife has just read out senior Tory states the following about Mayhem
"We all fucking hate her. But there nothing we can do. She has totally fucked us."
Well, well, well if it ain't the story about the three wells.
With friends like this who needs enemies.
-
It'll only take a few Tory MPs with enough backbone to take exception to the DUP hookup and go against the party whip on the queen's speech vote to cock things up. However if such a thing as a Tory MP with a backbone exists remains to be seen.
A few may even cross the floor of the house perhaps?
The other thing that struck me is given the opportunity to deprive the DUP of a platform and position of huge influence, could Sinn Fein be persuaded to ditch the abstentionism policy?
-
"Just to be clear" the guy in this pic looks like a nut job from the 70s n Ireland troubles
https://mobile.twitter.com/19acres/status/873116262116737027/photo/2 (https://mobile.twitter.com/19acres/status/873116262116737027/photo/2)
Just had look at this article in inde, same guy to the right of dup leader.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dup-hung-parliament-results-policies-manifesto-abortion-gay-marriage-climate-change-who-are-they-a7781656.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dup-hung-parliament-results-policies-manifesto-abortion-gay-marriage-climate-change-who-are-they-a7781656.html)
The tories always say we don't do deals with terrorists, first Saudi, Isis, now these home grown nut jobs, good work over the last few weeks for the Cons.
I think that half of N Ireland will be going ape shit. It's going to end in tears.
Dave if anybody can persuade Sinn Fein maybe JC might be able to.
But they have stated today they won't take their seats in HoC
-
Let's not fuck about, in the face of the majority of papers being Tory backers, and the bias of the BBC coverage of Corbyn, and half the parliamentary labour party being on his back from day one, this is nothing short of an absolute triumph for Corbyn. If for example that reptile Murdoch had been onside like in 1997 (not that I want him on side) it would have been an absolute landslide. Complete and utter disaster for May and the Tories.
Plus I made £70.
Right, I've had very little sleep and am still pissed so I might be dreaming, but spot on Dave. Really don't want to say "I told you so" so I won't (except just there). But this is all Corbyn's, there's going to be a lot of humble pie getting scranned today by experts, pundits, journos, and labour MPs. Surprising number of trots, entryists, commies etc. all throughout the country.
Great to see that £70 and even as a liberal minded chap I'm gladened by most of the outcome (I'd hoped the Lib Dems would do a bit better to signal better news for the prospects for PR, brexit processes and realistic manifesto budgeting) but happy as I am I won't lose touch with reality. The Maybot lost this, more than Jezza winning it (even though his exceeding the dumb press expectations wasn't so hard and I think he genuinely did very well even compared to more realistic expectations). I'd also point out the new You Gov modelling system predicted this result long before the exit poll.
I see the result as a classic case of hope (policies and costings) over fear (and invited 'scorpion trust' ....remember the frog joke http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html ). As for the entryists, of course the Scum and Fail style press view is idiotic, however, a good number of the Trots I knew from my union politics are now Momentum and Labour members. These rigid minded revolutionaries are obviously very much a tiny minority but they are highly organised and motivated and once they establish a foothold in organisations of the left they punch well above their weight. They seem to me incapable of behaving and so trouble will come from their membership. In my experience they don't care a jot about democracy and will end up causing real damage for the sake of the greater cause, and in this will happily call black white. I'm still hopeful the much much larger youth surge in Labour swamps this SWP ideological cul-de-sac.
The next problem is the probable slow decay of a coalition with a party of real ex-terrorist sympathisers and religious reactionaries. Longer term, proper state funding for vital public services similar to the EU GDP per capita average (especially for the NHS and Social Care), a fairer election system and other hopeful dreams, without messing up the national finances too much.
-
How to deal with the Tory candidate
Step 1.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-JHNOCobFM (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5-JHNOCobFM)
-
This thread is a bit of a wakeup call on he whole DUP thing, esp if like me you don't really know much about NI politics. Basically May could be totally fucking up the peace process for a wafer thin majority.
https://twitter.com/jackbern23/status/873277922429325314
-
Could be? Is. She's really demonstrating a complete lack of awareness for anything but her own survival.
I kind of hope it lasts long enough for her to fuck Brexit up too, but Irish stability has to be the priority.
-
She's really demonstrating a complete lack of awareness for anything but her own survival.
Page 1 of How To Be A Tory - act in complete short term self interest and fuck everyone else.
-
Brexit negotiating team has been rebranded.
Now called The Conservative Unionist Negotiating Team.
Qolloquially known as The CUNTS.
-
It's already shining a bright spotlight on the (to me rather murky) world of Northern Irish politics - that over here has largely been brushed under the carpet. For NI that's probably a good thing - for the rest of us it's not a good coalition/combination imho
-
The other thing that struck me is given the opportunity to deprive the DUP of a platform and position of huge influence, could Sinn Fein be persuaded to ditch the abstentionism policy?
The thing that strikes me is, given all that's been said above, would you want them to?
-
Can't see it. Since the referendum the NI question has been systematically avoided. This is dragging it into the national spotlight and the DUP are not going to look good.
-
The only way the DUP would ever look good, would be in the distance.
And then, that distance would need to be several tens of lightyears to have any effect!
-
The other thing that struck me is given the opportunity to deprive the DUP of a platform and position of huge influence, could Sinn Fein be persuaded to ditch the abstentionism policy?
The thing that strikes me is, given all that's been said above, would you want them to?
So true, don't want anything to do with Sinn Fein as the troubles continue to rumble on all be it a lower level. I think whilst there are NI politicians linked to terrorists or have been terrorists, parliament/gov shouldn't be used as a platform for them. It is though hypocritical of the cons to state jezzer had terrorist sympathies but it is then ok for the Cons to work with organisation like the DUP with dodgy past and present.
You couldn't make it up.
-
Word is it may be more of a formal coalition than on a per vote basis..
Tory chiefs of staff gone over to NI to negotiate...
Whilst this may appear to be more stable than per vote, I think it is probably a bad move for the Tories, as it will make their association with those loons far more formal. Remember what governing with right wingers did for the LD's...
Interesting silence from Labour on this one... I hope they are working hard on their alternative queens speech..
-
It is though hypocritical of the cons to state jezzer had terrorist sympathies but it is then ok for the Cons to work with organisation like the DUP with dodgy past and present.
What other option do they have to form any sort of viable govt? The LDs said they wouldn't be part of a coalition with either side during the campaign, didn't they so there's no one else out there. She's hardly going to turn round to JC and say "here, you have first go at making a coalition, i don't like the look of these ulster boys very much..."
-
Well she could have done.. Major resisted the temptation on many occasions despite their overtures toward him... She's completely lacking in any principles or dignity and should have walked yesterday, or, had the guts to stand up and try and lead a minority government in a hung parliament.
-
For my money.. let them crack on. I'd rather the Tories were behind the wheel of the car crash that will be brexit. They can slowly pull themselves apart and a proper socialist left Labour can rise out of the wreckage and win with a landslide in the next (early) election.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
For my money.. let them crack on. I'd rather the Tories were behind the wheel of the car crash that will be brexit. They can slowly pull themselves apart and a proper socialist left Labour can rise out of the wreckage and win with a landslide in the next (early) election.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
This seems probable.
I'm mildly surprised she has chosen to plough on, though perhaps her lack of judgment should not come as a surprise.
She seems so hellbent on power, she's quite eager to take a second swig from the chalice that most of her peers viewed as poisoned, a year ago. She might just destroy the Tory party in the process.
We can but hope.
-
I've just been reading the news and reckon she'll be gone by this time next week. She's alone in the water with Timothy and Hill gone, surrounded by sharks with blood in the water and completely misunderstood how many of the rank and file would object to the DUP deal plus Ruth Davidson adjitating North of the wall - May's fucked.
-
The other thing that struck me is given the opportunity to deprive the DUP of a platform and position of huge influence, could Sinn Fein be persuaded to ditch the abstentionism policy?
The thing that strikes me is, given all that's been said above, would you want them to?
So true, don't want anything to do with Sinn Fein as the troubles continue to rumble on all be it a lower level. I think whilst there are NI politicians linked to terrorists or have been terrorists, parliament/gov shouldn't be used as a platform for them. It is though hypocritical of the cons to state jezzer had terrorist sympathies but it is then ok for the Cons to work with organisation like the DUP with dodgy past and present.
You couldn't make it up.
What I was getting at, in a roundabout way, is I thought Dave was suggesting Labour/ 'a progressive coalition' could 'get' Sinn Fein to take up their seats as a way to level the numbers. Which could of course be viewed by some people as very hypocritical. Correct me if I'm wrong Dave.
-
Apparently Condup negotiations are going well.
TV cameras have been allowed into film the get together, breaking the ice, principles and peace process.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsFtiruIok (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEsFtiruIok)
-
Good read:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/
-
Good read:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/
Not had the time to read it all but read the last bit regarding Brexit.
I have been thinking about minority gov, this is a bit of a long shot.
Why on such a big decision are the Cons/Lab not working together to deliver on this.
Both parties seem to want, the minutiae is obviously different, but the will seems to be there.
May could simply call Jezzers bluff.
I still think cross party arrangements like this are needed on Education, Health, Social care.
Why should it be that every 5 years having an overhaul, why don't parties work together so that this long term thinking in terms of stability a view that will hold together for 10 years or longer.
-
Their objectives are fundamentally opposed though, aren't they?
Labour want to retain the welfare state, Conservatives want to disassemble and privatise. There isn't much common ground apart from both being muddled and conflicted about our relationship to Europe.
-
Their objectives are fundamentally opposed though, aren't they?
Labour want to retain the welfare state, Conservatives want to disassemble and privatise. There isn't much common ground apart from both being muddled and conflicted about our relationship to Europe.
Yep get all that, just like regulars on here we sometimes don't agree, but sometimes we do find common ground and agree.
So if the two main parties agree on a key issue like Brexit, they want it to happen, surely the best course of action is work together. It would be in the national interest.
How best to get out of the cul-d-sac we are now in? Again such a massive decision is best taken with a collective view as the affect will in all probability be so long lasting. Without having to resort to coalitions with nut job parties. I am against brexit personally.
I was speaking to my dad this afternoon, politics always seems to be about point scoring, tribalism etc. Rather than about the national interest.
With regard to health care, education, social care, again best way forward would be put aside the tribalism and work out some common ground.
If there is another election the outcome could quite possibly be the same, hung parliament etc, we are then back to square one.
Politics is the art of the possible.
-
I think Labour will have no interest in rescuing the Tories from this car-crash.
Rising inflation, falling pound, slowest growth in Eurozone, chaos at the negotiating table - a negotiation brought on by Tory hubris as a wheeze to keep the swivel-eyed imperialists quiet. And an impotent PM. All of this on the Tory watch.
I think Labour will watch and wait.
-
Sit back and let the mess unfurl.
Jdfm is right though - there is the opportunity (that won't be taken) to make Brexit negotiations cross party. But they won't...
-
It's just not how politics works. The other lot are very very bad and thus you must oppose them. This is a gift for Labour. The Brexit negotiations will be a mess entirely precipitated and presided over by the Tories. After the fallout, they'll be there to heroically take over.
-
It's just not how politics works. The other lot are very very bad and thus you must oppose them. This is a gift for Labour. The Brexit negotiations will be a mess entirely precipitated and presided over by the Tories. After the fallout, they'll be there to heroically take over.
Yep but not very grown up really when you think about it.
Why not try to influence things rather than pick up the pieces after the event.
I can see why Lab wouldn't touch this with a barge pole.
But what a mess.
-
It appears you are assuming will happily scuttle the ship to see the captain sink.
it is also possible that they anticipate there will be a mutiny once the water starts lapping the gunwales which will be the moment to wrest power and start baling frantically.
Tom Watson says they are ready for the next election. Very few people think we'll have to wait 5 years for that.
-
Tories will not call an election until they can either win it - or are forced to by a vote of no confidence.
Either is unlikely imho for the foreseeable future..
-
...
I was talking to my other half about this theoretical scenario last night, which I think is eminently possible (and also terrifying at the same time)...I'm calling this now so I can say "I told you so" later:
- Tories win (sizeable lead / slim majority)
- "Big beasts" rumbling about Maybot's calling of election, not pushing home advantage
- Maybot resigns / gets the boot
- BoJo PM
So we'll have been round in a massive circle, to end up with a Tory govt with a similar sized majority, and an unelected PM.
Then of course, the Brexit omnishambles begins...
Going in that kind of direction then.
-
Any offer of this sort by the tories would be viewed by labour as the trap that it was. Why would labour be fool enough to volunteer for the role of scapegoat when the negotiations inevitably go badly and we equally inevitably come out with a shit deal? If the tories are smart they'll make the offer knowing it'll be refused, it's a win win for them, they either get a scapegoat, or a PR win.
-
Further details are leaking out why there has been a delay for the queens speech.
"As Watt explained on the World at One a moment ago, the Queen’s speech is not written on proper goat’s skin anymore, but on some sort of equivalent. But it is still necessary for the speech to be finalised several days in advance because it takes a while for the ink to dry on this material." - guardian
You couldn't make it up, stick it on a phone or tablet, who needs paper or synthetic goat skin.
-
Naughty young Labour voters caught trespassing.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/12/david-squires-on-theresa-mays-deal-with-the-dup
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170612/b729848cbca3cde9b0a3f78a500293bb.jpg)
-
Further details are leaking out why there has been a delay for the queens speech.
"As Watt explained on the World at One a moment ago, the Queen’s speech is not written on proper goat’s skin anymore, but on some sort of equivalent. But it is still necessary for the speech to be finalised several days in advance because it takes a while for the ink to dry on this material." - guardian
You couldn't make it up, stick it on a phone or tablet, who needs paper or synthetic goat skin.
UK laws are transcribed onto vellum which lasts much much longer than ordinary paper. We still have original signed copies of the Magna Carter from 800 years ago that were written on vellum. If having a permanent, official record of these things is important (it is) then just banging it into a word document doesn't quite cut it. Thinking about it there are potential problems with file types falling out of usage, data corruption etc. Files may be replicated in different places with changes made, such that it isn't clear which version is the original document. Etc etc etc.
I'm not saying that storing stuff on vellum is perfect or even necessarily better than digital storage, just pointing out why it is done that way. The Tories might try and blame a late Queen's speech on a seemingly archane way of storing information, but the reality is that they've known for long enough when the Queen's speech is due, they know what the lead time is for having it transcribed. They're just trying to put the blame on something other than the disarray in their own party.
-
Is this acceptable from an MP?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170612/7c4f931f2f01fa1b06eae6e1d8c31e94.jpg)
-
I'm not saying that storing stuff on vellum is perfect or even necessarily better than digital storage, just pointing out why it is done that way. The Tories might try and blame a late Queen's speech on a seemingly archane way of storing information, but the reality is that they've known for long enough when the Queen's speech is due, they know what the lead time is for having it transcribed.
Well 802 days this Thursday since Magna Carta, time enough for even the slowest of learners you might think.
-
UK laws are transcribed onto vellum which lasts much much longer than ordinary paper. We still have original signed copies of the Magna Carter from 800 years ago that were written on vellum. If having a permanent, official record of these things is important (it is) then just banging it into a word document doesn't quite cut it.
[\quote]
Nice to see labour taking the lead on this, carving their 2015 electoral promises into stone. It'll outlast even vellum.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
-
Is this acceptable from an MP?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170612/7c4f931f2f01fa1b06eae6e1d8c31e94.jpg)
Not really, but it'll not bring the House down. Losing the faith of half of Ulster as an impartial mediator by entering into an interdependent agreement with the DUP, well...
-
Not acceptable, but very funny.
Oh and Saint Teresa will "get us out of this". I've got the popcorn at the ready.
-
....?
https://www.georgiagrainger.co.uk/politics/shame-game-dup/
I actually quite liked Major, he seemed to have fewer axis in his eye swivel than is the Tory norm (but then, I liked Brown too). He's possibly the only Tory firing on all cylinders at the moment:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-john-major-theresa-may-conservatives-dup-deal-violence-northern-ireland-a7787681.html
-
So, I would take this as Ashcroft's opinion, relayed by the baby faced one (having spent long evenings with the toddler, my impression is that he needs to be told how to hold toilet paper).
Interesting to see the extent of hinting, or outright calling for, cross party cooperation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/brexit-will-defeat-government-unless-recognises-everything-has/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg
If you register, you can read one premium article per week from the Torygraph. It's quite amusing to think they probably think I'm a Tory because I signed up.
-
I seem to remember quite a few UKber's previous trotting out the "Corbyn totally unelectable" line previously...anything to say on that now??? :jab:
-
Well proved otherwise, but keep some perspective; a brilliant campaign - clearly a huge area of strength- doesn't make concerns in other areas completely disapppear, there's some work to be done in terms of day-to-day party politics, that has not changed.
-
I think, perhaps, few were fully aware of his abilities prior to campaign.
My opinion has softened on the Fella, though I still see him as a socks and sandals, right on, luvvy; I realised I'd never really listened to him speak and he was more commanding/authoritative than I had given him credit for.
-
This made me laugh telegraph btl comment about what's happening, priceless thinking.
"It is time for the UK to have a military coup. We have Brexit in shreds, terrorism abounds and social upheaval the likes of which we have not seen in decades. We have no politicians of any stature who can remedy any of this and the longer things remain the way they are the worse it is going to get.
By having a military dictatorship Brexit will be solved as the UK would be thrown out for being undemocratic. Job # 1 done !
The military can then deal with the terror agents within the country asthey should be dealt with. Job # 2 done !
Most of the social ills in the country are fostered by the young and immigration .Conscription will solve the problem of under 25's by giving them something to do and something else to think about other than anti-social media. Job # # done.
Immigration can be stopped in it's tracks and resettlement of those who do not integrate can be begun immediately as it should have been done 50 years ago at the behest of Enoch Powell. Job # 4 done.
Hopefully by then some decent politicians would have come out of the woodwork and Parliament can reconvene. The 2nd Commonwealth. All we need is a Cromwell !"
-
I seem to remember quite a few UKber's previous trotting out the "Corbyn totally unelectable" line previously...anything to say on that now??? :jab:
Not really, Corbs wasn’t elected. It’s undeniable that he led a very good campaign. Some of his policies are fab, some a bit more pie in the sky.
The question now is, can he be elected? Maybe in the future he can be, but we might have seen peak Corbyn in this election. Hard line Corbyn supporters have been quick to point out that Labour achieved a massive vote share in this election, but the Conservatives achieved a similarly large share and this is simply an artefact of the collapse of UKIP and the Lib Dems. There is less choice over who to vote for so the major parties sweep up.
People on the left voted for Labour in droves but I suspect this is as much an indictment of the Tories as an endorsement of Corbyn’s leadership. I’m not a particular Corbyn fan but I was happy to vote Labour this time round as it presented the best possibly chance of getting rid of the Conservatives. I think a lot of others are in the same boat.
Corbyn mobilised a big youth vote which has been very impressive. I wonder if those voters are here to stay? Probably, given that they voted and achieved a perceived win. However, Corbyn’s campaign was mirrored by the most ham-fisted, cynical, ill-judged election campaign that I can remember. Theresa May will not fight another GE as leader, and I expect that there are others in her party who could do the job much better. I’d be really interested to see a turnout breakdown to see if older voters tended to stay at home while the young were motivated to get to the polling booth. I think also that, as the dust settles, the Conservatives will sit up and take notice of this result and curb some of their greatest austerity excesses in order to become less toxic.
So: falling away of third parties; motivated young and "anybody but Theresas" against alienated and uninspired Conservative core vote; large amounts of tactical voting. All of that and Labour are still about 50 seats behind the Conservatives. If Labour want to actually win an election, as Tony Blair did so magnificently, and put themselves in a position to implement their manifesto then they have to appeal to people who hover in the centre and might otherwise be tempted to vote Conservative. These are the people to whom anything further left than left-of-centre is totally toxic. My neighbour for instance: late 70s or early 80s; very liberal minded for somebody of her demographic – she could not bring herself to vote Labour in this election because in her gut she doesn’t have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn.
After this election result, Labour are now going to have JC as their leader for some time. If he can’t appeal to those in the middle then I think we’ll have a stalemate. If he can, then we may well have PM Corbyn.
-
I’d be really interested to see a turnout breakdown to see if older voters tended to stay at home
This is what I'd expected; I don't think it happened. May pulled an impressive number of votes.
My neighbour for instance: late 70s or early 80s; very liberal minded for somebody of her demographic – she could not bring herself to vote Labour
Why not? What I'd imagine from both these points is that the print media does still have a big influence on the older demographic.
-
This is one thing that annoys me, people saying "I couldn't vote for Corbyn". Well neither could I, because I don't live in Islington. We have this thing where we treat it like a Presidential election, when it's not. Leaders can come and go at the drop of a hat, as we've seen of late.
EDIT: I should add, I have no idea why this annoys me. But worth reminding people we have a parliamentary system not a president.
-
I’d be really interested to see a turnout breakdown to see if older voters tended to stay at home
This is what I'd expected; I don't think it happened. May pulled an impressive number of votes.
My neighbour for instance: late 70s or early 80s; very liberal minded for somebody of her demographic – she could not bring herself to vote Labour
Why not? What I'd imagine from both these points is that the print media does still have a big influence on the older demographic.
I think they will disappear.
So unless the prevailing attitude is a function of age, there should be a re-alignment of politics. The Boomers, who grew up in the chaos of the '70s, boom of the '80s and hunger still for the mighty Thatcher; will be replaced by those (like me and most of my juniors) who feel more keenly the aftershocks of the 2008 crash, the cut of the Austerity knife and pay attention to where that Quack's scalpel avoids.
-
I’d be really interested to see a turnout breakdown to see if older voters tended to stay at home
This is what I'd expected; I don't think it happened. May pulled an impressive number of votes.
Older peeps had a higher turnout and were more likely to vote blue.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
-
This is one thing that annoys me, people saying "I couldn't vote for Corbyn". Well neither could I, because I don't live in Islington. We have this thing where we treat it like a Presidential election, when it's not. Leaders can come and go at the drop of a hat, as we've seen of late.
Absolutely correct, however the party is undoubtedly steered by the leader and the leader is the biggest single influence on the parties direction. So in a sense you vote for the party as the leader envisages it. There's a big difference between Blair's Labour and Corbyn's Labour.
My neighbour for instance: late 70s or early 80s; very liberal minded for somebody of her demographic – she could not bring herself to vote Labour
Why not? What I'd imagine from both these points is that the print media does still have a big influence on the older demographic.
I didn't quiz her so I don't know. However I expect the reason would be that he's a bit "airy fairy" or a bit of a wet lettuce. These are very loose points which can be roughly translated to "I don't know, I just get a bad feeling about him". Rather than blaming the media, perhaps consider that many people prefer a political leader who appears commanding, maybe to the point of being authoritarian, especially. The print media, edited largely by middle aged and up white people reflects this.
I'm not putting these arguments forward because they reflect my own opinion, but because I think a lot of Corbyn supporters have spent a lot of time thinking about what they and their friends want and not a lot of time thinking about what everybody else wants.
-
Actually Will, one thing that seems to have struck a chord with voters, especially the young, was Corbyn's collegiate approach - asking people what they wanted rather than telling them what they needed.
I went out on Thursday after using MyNearestMarginal.com to help get the vote out in Stocksbridge. Bear in mind I've never done anything political previously other than post on FB and protest the Junior Doctors contract last year. It was most enlightening!
So many volunteers had turned out we were sent over to Ecclesfield to help out. My agenda was my own, I only voted Labour for the first time last election, I'm not really a true socialist and I'm certainly not a Corbynista. What got me out was concern over Conservative arrogance, and concern over a hard Brexit and losing the NHS.
The day was a game of two halves, the local Labour activists follow a plan, basically vote counting and hoping a bit of personal contact gets people on board. By contrast, I wanted to get people to vote whoever that might be for, to hear some views outside my FB bubble, and also see how election canvassing works on the ground. In the morning, our handler, a friendly old veteran called Helen, totally got it. We were left to chat to people, and I got a few to vote, talked about a few issues with folks. Corbyn came up a fair bit, most people saying he was growing on them over time. I think most people were impressed that I wasn't giving it the hard sell and was eager to listen.
In the afternoon, we got an old git who just wanted the numbers and got annoyed if we spent too long chatting. I had to pull him up for leaning on someones car to fill in his clipboard. Eventually I just fucked him off and went renegade, doing my own thing. The most poignant thing was chatting to a young lad in a particularly run-down bit of the estate we visited. I could see something light up in him when I said that he had as much right to vote as anyone, and that we all had an equal voice so why not vote on what was important to you individually (OK, maybe bullshit without PR but it's the sentiment that counts). He may well have gone and voted UKIP, but I'd rather that than the slow decline in turnout which this election seems to have reversed.
So, whether you like him or hate him, one thing Corbyn seems to have done is got people engaged in politics again, which can only be a good thing?
-
I’d be really interested to see a turnout breakdown to see if older voters tended to stay at home
This is what I'd expected; I don't think it happened. May pulled an impressive number of votes.
Older peeps had a higher turnout and were more likely to vote blue.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Saw those charts, what will be interesting to watch/research is as the current 18-50 age groups get older, and the 50-70+ groups die off, will they keep their views or do people generally develop more conservative opinions as they get older?
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-06-13/Age-01.png)
-
as rich people have been saying for a century and a half: “If you aren’t a socialist at twenty, you have no heart, and if you are a socialist at forty, you have no head.”
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/ (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/)
-
The fact that Mays tories rather than being conservative are actually intending to tear down almost every aspect of life that the old have always lived with suggests to me that it's simply tribalism. " I've always voted tory" rather than a desire for a right wing revolution.
-
The Honnold - May analogy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-d4F1ZqxHc
-
The Honnold - May analogy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-d4F1ZqxHc
I quite literally just logged on to UKB to share that after seeing it on Twatter.
F#%€ing hilarious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvjfq#play (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvjfq#play)
About 25 minutes in on BBC 4, Bozzer put under a little bit of pressure and wilts.
All bluster, hot air and horse play- classic car crash material.
Interviewed for 10 minutes and nothing to say.
Well done Paul Muir for not putting up with his shit.
So Queeny speech what I got from this.
1) those that voted for Mays manefesto get nothing, no fox hunting etc apart from soft Brexit.
2) Brexit on the rocks, DUP want Brexit but soft border with Republic - that's not going to work. Scottish Parliament may be able to create owns laws during great repeal bill independent of Eng. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-block-scotland-vote-repeal-bill-theresa-may-latest-news-a7801741.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-block-scotland-vote-repeal-bill-theresa-may-latest-news-a7801741.html)
If somebody can tell me what Brexit means, they will have cracked the enigma code of our times.
3) DuP want at least £2billion in order to support May, I'd call that bribery.
4) Corby appeared to have leadership written all over him today, didn't even bow to Queen!
In summing up present situation could only be called a cluster fuck.
Things to look forward to - nothing, MP's/gov to do fuck all until next election.
-
Not sure where the dividing line, between the referendum and election threads, sits anymore. It's all too tangled up.
However, the last paragraph of this is worrisome.
I wonder if it's real or journalistic fantasy?
http://www.politico.eu/article/battered-and-bruised-theresa-may-limps-into-enemy-territory/
-
I don't know if it's actually a faithfully repeated quote but it's a pretty uncontentious statement of the obvious tbh
-
Is anyone else also so resigned to the impending doom this country is sailing towards that they've given up even caring? I almost have a mild sense of amusement about the whole thing, in a sort of, "well, it's going to utterly fucked whichever way it turns out, so let's hope there a bit of flotsam to cling on to.
Fucked.
Utterly, utterly fucked.
-
Yep.
Just finished reading an albeit light hearted book re the first world war (if such a thing can exist) and it feels like we're in a similar state of (bloody) mind.
The establishment ploughing on regardless, "over the top boys", whilst the nation, who probably thought it was all a good thing to start with and would vote for it, are realising that its all just a bloody tragic shambles, with no real point to it all that costing millions (ok, at least its not lives this time around).
-
Read a thing this morning saying that Ireland are planning to block any UK Brexit deal (do ALL eu members need to agree to it?) in response to the DUP deal potentially knackering the peace process. Which could mean no Con-DUP deal.
-
Sinn Fein are taking it to the high court too iirc.
-
A kangaroo high court?
(sorry).
-
Is anyone else also so resigned to the impending doom this country is sailing towards that they've given up even caring? I almost have a mild sense of amusement about the whole thing, in a sort of, "well, it's going to utterly fucked whichever way it turns out, so let's hope there a bit of flotsam to cling on to.
I'm actually quite encouraged by the news at the minute. After the referendum there was a long period of uncertainty - with such a vague question and an unclear majority it was unclear to everybody what to do. Slowly the Tories managed to talk themselves and the country into Brexit - the delay in triggering Art50 being necessary to let everyone get used to that idea. What I think we are seeing now is the beginning of the opposite process. Politicians (who lets not forget were overwhelmingly remain) have a clear sign that the mood of the country has changed, the economic effects are being felt and they now feel comfortable publicly challenging Brexit. The juggernaut has not turned round yet but the brakes are firmly on.
-
I could see the negotiation process being an absolute shambles, then the public being presented with the best deal they can get (which will be dogshit) as a referendum question, the other option being to sack off Brexit. Which of course only the most insane UKIP and EDL crowd could conceivably vote for Brexit at this point. Job done, "will of the people" etc etc but tanking the economy for the time being.
-
do ALL eu members need to agree to it?
I understood that any of the 27 could veto, which isn't exactly the same.
-
I'm very confused by all this talk of a "deal" by our politicians. It was made very clear in the run-up to the referendum that the article 50 period was to be for negotiating the process of leaving.
Nothing we have heard from the EU side has suggested otherwise.
It was also made clear that typical times for the EU to negotiate free-trade deals are 7-10 years.
So presumably a successful "deal" would cover , a solution to the Irish border issue (really!!) the U.K. paying it's agreed contributions to EU budgets (really !!) and protection of EU citizens in the UK 's rights etc. None of that has anything to do with the future prosperity of the UK.
I guess if everything went well from an EU perspective(ie they get everything they want) they might agree in principle to a to-be-negociated free-trade deal.
Is that the "deal" we'd be voting on ? I'm baffled.
-
(a) The 'Deal' will be some variation of the Norway/Swiss (market and customs union membership - inc free movement) or the Turkish (Customs union only) agreement... either as a permanent of a 5 year 'transition' deal.
(b) Or no deal. Which is WTO tariffs and full old school customs shizzle.
I keep thinking I may be a harbinger of doom.. but it is a colossal fuck up. I bet in 1 year - probably in 2 years time we'll still have as much certainty as we have now about what will happen. In the meantime everything drains away...
The roadcrash voyeur part of me is amazed at what is happening with the Torys at the moment. I think they're hopelessly compromised at the moment. Park the DUP/NI/Irish border debacle for a moment and - you have the hardcore brexit dungeon masturbators (IDS, Grayling etc..) who will not settle for (a) - and you have the backbench remainer-wish-it-had-never-happened group for who (a) is acceptable (in some form) but (b) is crazy... All it takes is for either group to number 10-15 and abstain or vote against and the govt all falls apart.
-
Sorry -glitch!
-
But surely the Tories have ruled out a) ie single-market membership ... right at the beginning.
How can they possibly then present it as a successful negotiation?
I suspect they're still hoping to sort out a free-trade deal of some sort (still pretty much an economic disaster but better than nothing) & present that as a triumph.
Still baffled.
-
Growing Barnett formula problems:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/snp-warns-may-not-to-short-change-scotland-in-dup-agreement-1-4477441
http://www.iwa.wales/click/2017/06/additional-funding-wales-thanks-dup/
-
Totally un-electable??
https://youtu.be/UVGFi8balOM
-
Owen Smith would have worked that stage better. /s
-
I thought he was going to quote Percy Bishton for a second.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOyT3ZkUxI
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Totally un-electable??
https://youtu.be/UVGFi8balOM
Ah, I can see the mistake you've made there. You see, it's not just the people who go to Glastonbury who get to vote.
Seriously though. Corbyn could win an election, but he's got a long road ahead of him to get there.
-
That's the problem with Glastonbury isn't it? Always takes forever to drive home.
-
So an extra £1bn for N.I. That 'magic money tree' must have popped up from somewhere to help out with that and the change to the pensions, winter fuel payments, etc...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/26/tories-and-the-dup-reach-deal-to-prop-up-minority-government
-
£1bn is only three weeks worth of the money we'll be saving by leaving the EU though. No big deal.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/978061/stream_img.jpg)
-
£1bn is only three weeks worth of the money we'll be saving by leaving the EU though. No big deal.
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/978061/stream_img.jpg)
£1B might be the headline, but the DUP want to get their fingers into a few more pies.
The off the book figure being quoted is closer to £2B, democracy obviously has a price and it doesn't come cheep.
Don't forget the DUP "cash for ash scandal," a cool 500 million to sort out this.
It seems as though Treesa has managed to track down the mysterious money tree for her pet projects.
Grenfell Tower residents £5million, 8 DUP MP's with dodgy backgrounds/terrorist links £2B - £250 million per MP.
Think about what each MP throughout the UK could do with an additional £250 mill.
We are turning into a banana republic/laughing stock/basket case of the world.
-
Ah, I can see the mistake you've made there. You see, it's not just the people who go to Glastonbury who get to vote.
Yes Will, of course he's preaching to the converted there.. but I have to admit, I'd fallen into the trap 6 months ago of being influenced by the medias portrayal of him (shambolic, mumbling, awkward communicator) and this just goes to show how easily people, like me, can be misled.
It seems as though Treesa has managed to track down the mysterious money tree for her pet projects.
"There is a magic money tree.. you'll find it in the tax avoidance forest"
-
She's banking on her property investments to cover the extra:
http://newsthump.com/2017/06/26/london-estate-agents-insist-market-is-booming-after-woman-pays-1bn-for-house-on-downing-street/
-
Ah, I can see the mistake you've made there. You see, it's not just the people who go to Glastonbury who get to vote.
Yes Will, of course he's preaching to the converted there.. but I have to admit, I'd fallen into the trap 6 months ago of being influenced by the medias portrayal of him (shambolic, mumbling, awkward communicator) and this just goes to show how easily people, like me, can be misled.
It seems as though Treesa has managed to track down the mysterious money tree for her pet projects.
"There is a magic money tree.. you'll find it in the tax avoidance forest"
Trees"as" magic money trees"as" 3 weeks ago couldn't be found for the public sector workers. As if by magic it appears today.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbITJekGZE (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbITJekGZE)
The money tree explained, posted this a few weeks ago.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxM0swbuxQo (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxM0swbuxQo)
Same guy about the DUP money tree, couldn't say it any better myself.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1nHamtJic (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1nHamtJic)
-
Enjoy.... strange when comedy is so close to reality...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3nmdKglNvf0
-
Why.
Or at least, a fairly clear indication of the wealth split between the under 35's and their elders.
To me, another indication of the "Boomers " distortion of the economy.
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-living-standards-audit-2017/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Would have been better if debt management had a higher profile in this.
-
[deleted - wrong thread]
-
[deleted - wrong thread]
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, sums up everything that happened since this election..,
-
[deleted - wrong thread]
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, sums up everything that happened since this election..,
:D boom!