General Election June 8th

[Metal Biker]

It was brought up yesterday with an equally absurd claim - have you not been paying attention?

Yet you don't mention what that claim is. I think maybe you've forgotten what you're arguing about or for.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Because i'm not working 40 hours a week.

It's shift work, meaning an average of 24 hours a week. Sometimes it's more, 32, 35 sometimes it's less, 16, 14. That was all that was on offer. I was earning a guarenteed 40 hours as a supervisor but the company decided to get rid of them. All I know is one year bank holidays were optional, the next they were mandatory, you were no longer paid time/half minimum and it was during the Labour government of Blair/Brown. I don't have to cite anything, i'm just aware of when the change in circumstance happened.

You want my circumstances? Okay. South Manchester lad from a working class south Manchester, Labour voting family. High school level education ( 9 GCSE A-C), left school to learn a trade. My rent is £250 a month, I cycle to work on days to limit the costs of owning a motorcycle and improve fitness. Insurance is low, i'm not earning enough to pay tax, my food budget is modest, I don't spend money on holidays abroad and never have, I have modest hobbies that don't cost the earth, supporting City can be done via radio, tv or internet. You think it's impossible to live on £10,000 a year? It's not, that's why I find it bizarre when people say they need food banks, or that the Tories have made life impossible for them. The major difference is that I don't have children.

I don't consider myself 'poor' because i'm not struggling. There's a lot of wants, needs and haves attitudes amongst many people today, most of the time buying expensive items they don't really need in their life but feel like they need them. The number of conversations at work where people at work complain about having no money, then when pay day comes they spend over £100 in one night boozing. Now it's up to them to spend their money however they wish, but maybe think about where that money keeps going? That's why i'm slightly suspiscious of their lifestyle choices of people who say 'I'm not earning enough'; are they of the "i want it all/keep up with the joneses" or have they just endured a run of financial bad luck, which can happen I admit. But can poverty also be attributed to poor financial choices? One lad at work takes on so many shifts, often working 14 day stretches and tiring himself out. When I asked him what position he was in that forced him to work himself ragged he replied "I want to go backpacking in America". Personal need, not necessity causes him to work so much. I'm not suggesting its the cause to dismiss their plights, I simply consider it a possibility and you can't blame governments for that.

guy on question time last night included "not being able to take children to see Star Wars or buy them ice cream" as examples of poverty. For me, many people had a comfy life not having to work 10 years ago and are now redefining poverty as what most people would call "normal life".

 

[Metal Biker]

guy on question time last night included "not being able to take children to see Star Wars or buy them ice cream" as examples of poverty. For me, many people had a comfy life not having to work 10 years ago and are now redefining poverty as what most people would call "normal life".

My tv screen is only 40". 40!

I won't begrudge people for what they feel impacts their personal lives negatively, but that sounds very much like the Pret Woman a few weeks back, claiming that after Brexit and all the migrant workers leave (?), WHO will serve her her coffee from now on!? Won't somebody please think of the middle classes!?

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

My tv screen is only 40". 40!

I won't begrudge people for what they feel impacts their personal lives negatively, but that sounds very much like the Pret Woman a few weeks back, claiming that after Brexit and all the migrant workers leave (?), WHO will serve her her coffee from now on!? Won't somebody please think of the middle classes!?

On that particular program last night I believe Nurses and Doctors were cited as examples of poverty even though a bloke in the audience explained his wife was a "Normal" nurse and was doing well the audience handpicked in every sense of the word.. As you say, middle class poverty isn't poverty.

 

[bronco]

Yet you don't mention what that claim is. I think maybe you've forgotten what you're arguing about or for.

it is there 100% - ask an adult to look if you are struggling ?

 

[mcfc1632]

Alright.

Back on policy, you support Tory stance on Brexit (correct me if my observation is incorrect).

What would you say about Tory credibility based on their performance over the last 7 years?

Sorry - I missed this - and I would not want to have not replied to your post. I will deal with each of the 2 questions in turn.

Re: ".....you support Tory stance on Brexit".

I have not noticed you on the Brexit threads before and it would be a distraction of this thread to go into detail, happy to talk further on the A50 thread, but in summary:

1. I am absolutely clear in my views that the EU will face major issues - likely a form of implosion - in the coming decade. The longer we remain in the EU then the longer we will be adversely impacted - financially and economically - until we have fully participated in the race to the bottom. Therefore for me all judgements start on who will actually get us out of the EU. It therefore follows that:

2. I cannot vote for any party that is not one of the 3 'main parties' - as they will have no influence

3. Since 23/06 - IMO, it is completely obvious that anyone that really wants to see us leave the EU could not consider voting LibDem - we will not leave

4. Since yesterday, IMO, it is completely obvious that anyone that really wants to see us leave the EU could not consider voting Labour - we will not leave. That is IMO, an inescapable conclusion given how the negotiations would play out with their newly announced loony (cop out and disingenuous) Brexit policy.

5. Therefore - IMO, it is completely obvious that anyone that really wants to see us leave the EU must support the Tory approach as it is the only route through which a) we will actually leave the EU and b) be able to do so with a chance that the EU will not be able to wreak the damage that they would wish to see to the UK's economy and impose the continuing constraints that they would wish to place on the UK's ability to become a genuinely independent nation able to conduct direct trade agreements.

Anything beyond that summary should be discussed on the A50 thread

 

[Metal Biker]

it is there 100% - ask an adult to look if you are struggling ?

Or you could just tell me instead of being deflective. I'm not tracing through dozens of pages to find a comment that I don't even know what i'm looking for.

 

[west didsblue]

Of course it's true and I'm not going to take much notice of someone that thinks fascists use a capitalist ideology.

But I didn't actually say that did I ?

Hmmmm

Hitler ,Pinochet , Franco all overthrew the old order and enforced their own version of capitalism on the population- totally undeniable?

 

[mcfc1632]

Alright.

Back on policy, you support Tory stance on Brexit (correct me if my observation is incorrect).

What would you say about Tory credibility based on their performance over the last 7 years?

Re: "................What would you say about Tory credibility based on their performance over the last 7 years?"

I would find it easy to find many faults with the credibility of the Conservatives to implement promised policies based on the experience of the last 7 years.

Like other parties - like Labour at the moment - they have made promises specifically with the intention of securing votes - policies and promises that were not 'earthed' into a capability to deliver them based on having the required funding, support, resources etc. secured.

The Conservative party for me could be seen as being as bad at making and then failing to implement policies and promises as any other party where there has not been a clear majority - of a level where a government can push through policies and promises that are not universally popular. Only really Thatcher and Blair have had the mandate to achieve that.

On that last point - perhaps, especially at a time when the UK are facing a few years where there will be a need to take robust action to protect the UK's interest - perhaps even to achieve the implementation of unpopular policies such as tax hikes - May's decision to go to the country could be seen as being entirely justifiable.

With regard to the Tories actually delivering on a promised policy - in fact, you could say that the best example of the Conservatives actually acting to meet a policy and promise is that of holding the referendum.

Compare that with Labour, under Blair, promising to debate the membership of the EU and then put the question to the people - not once, in 2004 but again in 2005, when he said: ""We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote.".

For me his act was far worse than the normal failing of a government, Conservative or Labour. Generally they 'just fail', though perhaps ending up not having the funding, resources etc. With Blair though it was, IMO, pure duplicity. Cameron's (I am no fan) commitment to a referendum in his 2015 manifesto was the reason he secured a surprise majority - at least he followed through on that promise.

For me Labour's new Brexit policy is a further, shockingly stark, example of intended duplicity. As stated it is hardly possible for the UK to leave at all and thereby the Labour party is surreptitiously disregarding the outcome of the referendum - hoping their pro-leave supporters do not recognise that - but as I say that is for the other thread.

 

[arbabarshad]

Sorry - I missed this - and I would not want to have not replied to your post. I will deal with each of the 2 questions in turn.

Re: ".....you support Tory stance on Brexit".

I have not noticed you on the Brexit threads before and it would be a distraction of this thread to go into detail, happy to talk further on the A50 thread, but in summary:

1. I am absolutely clear in my views that the EU will face major issues - likely a form of implosion - in the coming decade. The longer we remain in the EU then the longer we will be adversely impacted - financially and economically - until we have fully participated in the race to the bottom. Therefore for me all judgements start on who will actually get us out of the EU. It therefore follows that:

2. I cannot vote for any party that is not one of the 3 'main parties' - as they will have no influence

3. Since 23/06 - IMO, it is completely obvious that anyone that really wants to see us leave the EU could not consider voting LibDem - we will not leave

4. Since yesterday, IMO, it is completely obvious that anyone that really wants to see us leave the EU could not consider voting Labour - we will not leave. That is IMO, an inescapable conclusion given how the negotiations would play out with their newly announced loony (cop out and disingenuous) Brexit policy.

5. Therefore - IMO, it is completely obvious that anyone that really wants to see us leave the EU must support the Tory approach as it is the only route through which a) we will actually leave the EU and b) be able to do so with a chance that the EU will not be able to wreak the damage that they would wish to see to the UK's economy and impose the continuing constraints that they would wish to place on the UK's ability to become a genuinely independent nation able to conduct direct trade agreements.

Anything beyond that summary should be discussed on the A50 thread

I usually only observe views which is why you have not noticed my posts on brexit threads.

I can understand your position on supporting Tory stance on brexit but it is based on your assumption that UK will not leave EU under Labour.

I am interested to see your answer to my 2nd question.

 

[mcfc1632]

I usually only observe views which is why you have not noticed my posts on brexit threads.

I can understand your position on supporting Tory stance on brexit but it is based on your assumption that UK will not leave EU under Labour.

I am interested to see your answer to my 2nd question.

I have replied to your 2nd point..........and

I would be happy to debate with you my

"......assumption that UK will not leave EU under Labour"

on the A50 thread and unless you are one of those that are incapable of genuinely discussing anything that does not fit with your pre-determined prejudices I would be pretty confident that I could persuade/prove my assumption to be accurate - at least within the realms of all possible outcomes

If you want to pick it up on the A50 thread - a good place to start would be for you to 'fill in the dots' on my post to Millionmilesaway on page 184 - I was disappointed that he did not do so - and strangely enough nor did any other poster

 

[Len Rum]

Similar to not leaving the EU without a deal. Have they costed for a £50bn exit bill? A £100bn one? None at all? The bill for continued membership?

Indeed.
Will the Tories be including this on their costings?
One would hope so as they are responsible for this Brexit fcuk up in the first place.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Indeed.
Will the Tories be including this on their costings?
One would hope so as they are responsible for this Brexit fcuk up in the first place.

have the EU costed for the £50/100bn they won't get when we say "sod off"?

works both ways.

 

[bronco]

Hmmmm

Which is not saying all fascists are capitalists is it - just 3 possible examples - I thought you didders lot were bright ?

 

[bronco]

Or you could just tell me instead of being deflective. I'm not tracing through dozens of pages to find a comment that I don't even know what i'm looking for.

No you really need to do it for yourself - the sense of achievement will be immense!!

 

[CityStu]

Indeed.
Will the Tories be including this on their costings?
One would hope so as they are responsible for this Brexit fcuk up in the first place.

The Tories have said that they would potentially leave the EU without a deal, so they can cost on that basis. If we then decide on a deal, the costs of that can be individually costed: assets + increased trade - bill = cost. I would hope that an acceptable deal would have a positive cost amount. By heading into the negotiations stating we won't leave without a deal, Labour are leaving that particular cost to the whims of the EU.

 

[Metal Biker]

No you really need to do it for yourself - the sense of achievement will be immense!!

You have no argument do you.

 

[Len Rum]

By a sensible industrial strategy that results in more tax revenue being generated at lower tax rates?

The problem with increasing the tax rate to 26% isnt that 26% is such a draconian rate. The problem is that Labour are signaling that, in post Brexit Britain, business (plus the wealthy and not so wealthy) will be expected to pick up whatever shortfall arises from the effects of Brexit and Labour's spending plans. Its painting business as a whole as a bunch of tax dodging Philip Green's who fall into the category of "fair game". Why would anyone believe that 26% would be the long term rate? Surely the increase would be just the beginning?

I think you can make an argument that corporation tax rates have fallen too far under the tories. But to jack them back up now, coinciding with Brexit, would be perverse.

I accept that just throwing money at our public services is not the long term solution but at this moment in time they are desperately underfunded and need extra money NOW.
Generating extra revenue by " a sensible industrial strategy that results in more tax revenue being generated at lower tax rates" as you suggest is Mayspeak and is at best mañana and at worst never going to happen.
You mention that to jack up corporation tax rates coinciding with Brexit would be perverse. So the Tories caused the risk and fallout from Brexit which in your view constrains any future government to raise any form of taxes in the Brexit period ( which some commentators expect to last at least five years)? Is that what you're saying?

 

[arbabarshad]

Re: "................What would you say about Tory credibility based on their performance over the last 7 years?"

I would find it easy to find many faults with the credibility of the Conservatives to implement promised policies based on the experience of the last 7 years.

Like other parties - like Labour at the moment - they have made promises specifically with the intention of securing votes - policies and promises that were not 'earthed' into a capability to deliver then based on having the required funding, support, resources etc. secured.

The Conservative party for me could be seen as being as bad at making and then failing to implement policies and promises than any other party where there has not been a clear majority - of a level where they can push through policies and promises that are not universally popular. Only really Thatcher and Blair have had the mandate to achieve that.

On that last point - perhaps, especially at a time when the UK are facing a few years where there will be a need to take robust action to protect the UK's interest - perhaps even to achieve that implement unpopular policies such as tax hikes - May's decision to go to the country could be seen as being entirely justifiable.

With regard to the Tories actually delivering on a promised policy - in fact, you could say that the best example of the Conservatives actually acting to meet a policy and promise is that of holding the referendum.

Compare that with Labour, under Blair, promising to debate the membership of the EU and then put the question to the people - not once, in 2004 but again in 2005, when he said: ""We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote.".

For me his act was far worse than the normal failing of a government, Conservative or Labour, though perhaps ending up not having the funding, resources etc. - because his was, INO, pure duplicity. Cameron's (I am no fan) commitment to a referendum in his 2015 manifesto was the reason he secured a surprise majority - at least he followed through on that promise.

For me Labour's new Brexit policy is a further, shockingly stark, example of intended duplicity. As stated it is not possible for the UK to leave at all and thereby the Labour party is surreptitiously disregarding the outcome of the referendum - hoping their pro-leave supporters to not recognise that - but as I say that is for the other thread.

Sure, I'll respond to the brexit post on Article 50 thread. But I would respond to this post on here as I believe this is more relevant to election policies and parties credibility.

You start by talking about other parties and Labour to assess Tory credibility. Then you provide an excuse (not large enough majority) for Tory government's failure to fulfil election pledges over the last 7 years resulting in lack of or no credibility. That would seem uncommon for an ex labour voter i.e. defending Tory governments poor performance or lack of credibility.

Moreover, you could come up with one promise fulfilled by the government in 7 years. That's not bad.

Now I don't question your stance on Labours credibility but it's conjecture and a very one sided view of the argument. How about Scrutinisng Tory's credibility Based on their performance against their pledges?

Or your prejudice over tory's brexit policy (whether that is right or wrong) means you'll keep your eyes closed to their credibility on other policies and pledges?

 

[bronco]

You have no argument do you.

You seem to have lost the ability to read ?