Post Match Thread: Election 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
karen7 said:
Have they dropped the plans to scrap the appeals process for disabled people who have been told they are fit to work ? they should drop that before they have more people dropping dead after being declared fit
Click to expand...

Must admit I was surprised that Labour prioritised abolishing student fees in their entirety over reversing the more draconian welfare changes.
 
cibaman said:
Must admit I was surprised that Labour prioritised abolishing student fees in their entirety over reversing the more draconian welfare changes.
Click to expand...
No-one in westminster speaks for us and it stinks,i can see why May spent the whole time talking about Brexit,so she can sneak through policies like that and no-one notices except the people affected
As for going to the game tonite, the cheeky cow
 
CityStu said:
I think the Tories were attempting to use their huge poll lead (and predicted large majority) to push through a fair few ideologically driven, shite policies.

This pissed off enough people for them to fail to win a majority at all, let alone a large one.

Changing the manifesto to remove the ideological crap is both good for the electorate (as they get a more centrist option) and the party (as they stand a good chance of a majority) as SWP said.

I mean fox hunting FFS.
Click to expand...

Centrist? We've had 7 years of ideologically driven, shite policies. Apart from grammar schools, there wasn't much "ideology" that wasn't there before. Fox hunting was just a sop to the countryside bods to deflect from realising the EU subsidies ain't got long to go. Give up free school nonsense, the privatisation of the NHS, tax cuts for the richest, abolish the bedroom tax (maybe that's what the DUP wants and May won't concede), and maybe the nastiness and toxicity would be reduced.

Anyway, it's not quite a prediction but I did say the Scottish Tories were against the English Tories. Press talk today of the Scottish Tories becoming a separate party. What chance, when May loses a vote, that the Scottish Tories agree to abstain when Corbyn puts together his coalition of cohesion?
 
DCO0bQSXYAAzgBk.jpg
 
CityStu said:
I think the Tories were attempting to use their huge poll lead (and predicted large majority) to push through a fair few ideologically driven, shite policies.

This pissed off enough people for them to fail to win a majority at all, let alone a large one.

Changing the manifesto to remove the ideological crap is both good for the electorate (as they get a more centrist option) and the party (as they stand a good chance of a majority) as SWP said.

I mean fox hunting FFS.
Click to expand...

I get all that crap.

What I'm saying is surely some tw@ 'proof reads' before okay-ing some blurb.

Maybe the 'May Flower' read it out aloud to Dear Philip, who muttered "Yes dear!" to her asking if it sounded alright, all whilst he stood behind her, cowering and staring at her back?!!

Who the fook knows why that sh*t made it in to the manifesto!

It's like handing in homework, getting an F, and then deciding to alter it after, realising 'Actually it wasn't very good!'!

I mean WTF?
 
sir baconface said:
No, it doesn't look good. They need to take a long, hard look at what lessons can be learned. One of them, IMO, is that extra funding is undoubtedly needed for NHS and social care, and that it will have to come out of taxation of those (individuals and companies) with deep pockets. It can't be wrung out of cutbacks year after year after year.

And I speak as a natural Tory voter, albeit one who abstained on this occasion.
Click to expand...

I said as much myself and got an echo chamber in return as the other 'natural Tory voters' went quiet on the issue. It seems that common sense shows this to be the correct pathway .
 
The perfect fumble said:
In a socialist nirvana we'd all be millionaires.
Click to expand...
In a capitalist nirvana we would be also. I was part of an exciting dot com startup that grew very quickly to an eye watering market cap.

The chief exec at one comapny meeting stood up and said to the audience of all 2,000 employees, "every person in this room is going to be a millionaire".

It wasn't all senior execs either - we didn't have 2000 of those. It was every day folk from secretaries to sales reps. But we were all shareholders and all passionately believed in the company.

On paper we did all become millionaires, but of course the bubble burst and most of us never made that much.

I tell this tale to remind people that capitalism is about wealth creation for all. And capitalist are not evil people who do not give a shit about the less well off. Indeed that CEO was one of the most caring guys you could ever meet, who's given hundreds of millions of his own money to various charities.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is not some idealog's nirvana. It actually works. Socialism makes the poor a little better off for a while perhaps; but ultimate even that is eroded and eventually everyone is worse off. It's a lovely idea, kind and all that. But it doesn't work.

And it's not like it hadn't been tried. But none of the successful economies in the world have ever been full-on socialist. They have all either been capitalisrvor founded on capitalist free market principles.
 
Bigga said:
I get all that crap.

What I'm saying is surely some tw@ 'proof reads' before okay-ing some blurb.

Maybe the 'May Flower' read it out aloud to Dear Philip, who muttered "Yes dear!" to her asking if it sounded alright, all whilst he stood behind her, cowering and staring at her back?!!

Who the fook knows why that sh*t made it in to the manifesto!

It's like handing in homework, getting an F, and then deciding to alter it after, realising 'Actually it wasn't very good!'!

I mean WTF?
Click to expand...
Did you actually read it? Be honest now. There's no shame in saying no.

I'm assuming you did not, but actually you might be surprised at the content. It talks of many of the aims for our society that I am sure you would share.

It's a bit thin, with not enough about the NHS and social care. And the elderly care cost proposals were imo a mistake but nothing like as ridiculous as people making political mischief made out. You ALREADY have to sell your home to pay for residential care. There is a "dementia tax" already in place.

The document smacks of being hastily put together and not sufficiently peer-reviewed, neither of which are acceptable. But the greater sin was the dismal performance of the idiot trying to sell it. Actually the idiot didn't bother trying or forgot. She was beyond hopeless, she was actually offputting.

I don't know how much of Labour's 40.0% is an "anything but her" vote, but sure as hell some of it is.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
capitalism is about wealth creation for all.
Click to expand...

That is fundamentally untrue.

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

There is no mechanism in capitalism to ensure an equitable distribution of that profit, quite the opposite in fact.
 
Chippy_boy said:
In a capitalist nirvana we would be also. I was part of an exciting dot com startup that grew very quickly to an eye watering market cap.

The chief exec at one comapny meeting stood up and said to the audience of all 2,000 employees, "every person in this room is going to be a millionaire".

It wasn't all senior execs either - we didn't have 2000 of those. It was every day folk from secretaries to sales reps. But we were all shareholders and all passionately believed in the company.

On paper we did all become millionaires, but of course the bubble burst and most of us never made that much.

I tell this tale to remind people that capitalism is about wealth creation for all. And capitalist are not evil people who do not give a shit about the less well off. Indeed that CEO was one of the most caring guys you could ever meet, who's given hundreds of millions of his own money to various charities.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is not some idealog's nirvana. It actually works. Socialism makes the poor a little better off for a while perhaps; but ultimate even that is eroded and eventually everyone is worse off. It's a lovely idea, kind and all that. But it doesn't work.

And it's not like it hadn't been tried. But none of the successful economies in the world have ever been full-on socialist. They have all either been capitalisrvor founded on capitalist free market principles.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily say that no successful country has ever been full on capitalist.

all successful countries are capitalist economies tempered by social (and I would argue socialist) restrictions and supported by social (and again I would argue socialist) schemes.
 
pirate said:
I could just as easily say that no successful country has ever been full on capitalist.

all successful countries are capitalist economies tempered by social (and I would argue socialist) restrictions and supported by social (and again I would argue socialist) schemes.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is a good balance to be achieved between both mores and pragmatic politics should be geared towards finding this balance. Much is made of the Venezuela situation but no one bangs on about Kansas in the US where ultra low taxation/unfettered capitalism was trialed with disastrous results. The other factor irrespective of system is incompetence of the people at the top and when ideological goals are prioritised over practical concerns. This latter point is one where Brexit falls with some people wanting to exit from the EU at all costs irrespective of economic damage and others seeking a more pragmatic solution to the decision to leave.

The reason why a year later we seem no further forward on our decision to leave is that there is no consensus on how to do it without damaging some aspects of the economy. Our red lines are incompatible with a smooth and pain free exit. Remember those heady days where the EU would give us what we want because they needed us more than we needed them? German car makers would bend Merkel to their will? France was a basket case with no leadership? Happy days.
 
The perfect fumble said:
To win you had to lose....



No more.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the sentiment of that video... Corbyn made promises he can't keep therefore caused mass hysteria (the proof is in the pudding) and May ran a shambolic non-campaign... it's skewed perspective

IMHO

Regardless, the young vote that he will no doubt access in another imminent election will likely get him into power..... the blind leading the blind.........
 
Bluemanc100 said:
I disagree with the sentiment of that video... Corbyn made promises he can't keep therefore caused mass hysteria (the proof is in the pudding) and May ran a shambolic non-campaign... it's skewed perspective

IMHO

Regardless, the young vote that he will no doubt access in another imminent election will likely get him into power..... the blind leading the blind.........
Click to expand...

You're the blind one I'm afraid....

 
The perfect fumble said:
That is fundamentally untrue.

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

There is no mechanism in capitalism to ensure an equitable distribution of that profit, quite the opposite in fact.
Click to expand...

He didn't suggest there's mechanisms for equal wealth distribution in capitalism, he said that capitalism means the ability to create wealth by everybody. Not EQUAL wealth by everybody.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top