General Election June 8th

[Ric]

My point was that labour is more inclined to get people with more money to contribute more whereas Tories are of the opinion that money earned due to endeavour shouldn't be grabbed. It's more a basic ideology. I haven't said which is right but are you saying this basic principle is wrong?

Nope, I believe they call that a straw man.

 

[hilts]

Nope, I believe they call that a straw man.

So you Are saying labour don't believe in taxing the rich more?

 

[1.618034]

As I have said in another thread happy clappers are of no use in any debate. Your opinions are set in stone, you will not change so why converse. This thread would have the same posters mainly as the last general election. We don't have a paralell universe to compare so none of us will ever be proven right.

If you look at the Iraq debacle and how the right slates Blair for it in what world can they get away with that shit? They do though. We have a policy from the Tories on social care which is a labour type policy all day long. What do labour do? Stick up for rich folk. Why? Just because the Tories came up with it. There are no winners here folks.

This Tory, sorry, May "policy" would probably, as an "average" earner, not hit me that hard, if I or my Mrs were unlucky enough to get Dementia, but the problem with it is, that it isn't fair, it's ill thought-out and, oh yeah, it isn't fair!


Talking of fair and whether there are any "winners", this 3 year old article seems relevant...


"...the country's five richest families now own more wealth than the poorest 20% of the population.

a handful of the super-rich, headed by the Duke of Westminster, have more money and financial assets than 12.6 million Britons put together.

The early stages of the UK's most severe post-war recession saw a fall in inequality as the least well-off were shielded by tax credits and benefits. But the trend has been reversed in recent years as a result of falling real wages, the rising cost of food and fuel, and by the exclusion of most poor families from home and share ownership.

the poorest 20% in the UK had wealth totalling £28.1bn – an average of £2,230 each. The latest rich list from Forbes magazine showed that the five top UK entries – the family of the Duke of Westminster, David and Simon Reuben, the Hinduja brothers, the Cadogan family, and Sports Direct retail boss Mike Ashley – between them had property, savings and other assets worth £28.2bn.

The most affluent family in Britain, headed by Major General Gerald Grosvenor, owns 77 hectares (190 acres) of prime real estate in Belgravia, London, and has been a beneficiary of the foreign money flooding in to the capital's soaring property market in recent years... Grosvenor and his family had more wealth (£7.9bn) than the poorest 10% of the UK population (£7.8bn).

Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, Ben Phillips, said: "Britain is becoming a deeply divided nation, with a wealthy elite who are seeing their incomes spiral up, while millions of families are struggling to make ends meet.

"It's deeply worrying that these extreme levels of wealth inequality exist in Britain today, where just a handful of people have more money than millions struggling to survive on the breadline."

The UK study follows an Oxfam report earlier this year which found that the wealth of 85 global billionaires is equivalent to that of half the world's population – or 3.5 billion people.

Oxfam said the wealth gap in the UK was becoming more entrenched as a result of the ability of the better off to capture the lion's share of the proceeds of growth. Since the mid-1990s, the incomes of the top 0.1% have grown by £461 a week or £24,000 a year. By contrast, the bottom 90% have seen a real terms increase of only £2.82 a week or £147 a year.

The charity said the trends in income had been made even more adverse by increases in the cost of living over the past decade. "Since 2003 the majority of the British public (95%) have seen a 12% real terms drop in their disposable income after housing costs, while the richest 5% of the population have seen their disposable income increase."

for the first time more working households were in poverty than non-working ones, and predicted that the number of children living below the poverty line could increase by 800,000 by 2020. It said cuts to social security and public services were meshing with falling real incomes and a rising cost of living to create a "deeply damaging situation" in which millions were struggling to get by.

The IMF recently released research showing that the ever-greater concentration of wealth and income hindered growth and said redistribution would not just reduce inequality but would be economically beneficial.


"On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme", the IMF said in a research paper. "And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political or broader social considerations."


Phillips said: "Increasing inequality is a sign of economic failure rather than success. It's far from inevitable – a result of political choices that can be reversed. It's time for our leaders to stand up and be counted on this issue.""


Millions of working families and individuals are tightening their belts and have falling living standards, with more to come, through no fault of their own, whilst the rich, many of whom are at fault, get richer.

It seems that if you have a car, a house and a widescreen TV (or as it's more commonly know these days "a TV"), then you should be just be grateful that you're not living in a cellar or the fucking workhouse.

You may not have noticed, but most people are sick of seeing the few make-hay off the back of globalisation, whilst the many get worse off... Therefore, it isn't fair.

At last there's an actual choice to be had in this election, and many, like me, are right up for it. FTR I've only ever voted Labour once before. On June 8th it'll be the 2nd time.

I voted to remain in the EU, but I really could see what people's problems with the EU were/are. I understood that people felt out of control and left behind... but in the end I went for the safety first option. You might say I was being conservative, but now we're leaving and the game has changed massively!

We need to take back control of, profit from and invest in our utilities, infrastructure and people.

We need to reduce inequality/relative poverty because, not only is that fair, but as the IMF say "narrowing of inequality helps support faster and more durable growth... apart from (those pesky) ethical, political or broader social considerations."

 

[The perfect fumble]

I can't be held responsible for others lack of comprehension

I often think that myself.

 

[hilts]

This Tory, sorry, May "policy" would probably, as an "average" earner, not hit me that hard, if I or my Mrs were unlucky enough to get Dementia, but the problem with it is, that it isn't fair, it's ill thought-out and, oh yeah, it isn't fair!


Talking of fair and whether there are any "winners", this 3 year old article seems relevant...


"...the country's five richest families now own more wealth than the poorest 20% of the population.

a handful of the super-rich, headed by the Duke of Westminster, have more money and financial assets than 12.6 million Britons put together.

The early stages of the UK's most severe post-war recession saw a fall in inequality as the least well-off were shielded by tax credits and benefits. But the trend has been reversed in recent years as a result of falling real wages, the rising cost of food and fuel, and by the exclusion of most poor families from home and share ownership.

the poorest 20% in the UK had wealth totalling £28.1bn – an average of £2,230 each. The latest rich list from Forbes magazine showed that the five top UK entries – the family of the Duke of Westminster, David and Simon Reuben, the Hinduja brothers, the Cadogan family, and Sports Direct retail boss Mike Ashley – between them had property, savings and other assets worth £28.2bn.

The most affluent family in Britain, headed by Major General Gerald Grosvenor, owns 77 hectares (190 acres) of prime real estate in Belgravia, London, and has been a beneficiary of the foreign money flooding in to the capital's soaring property market in recent years... Grosvenor and his family had more wealth (£7.9bn) than the poorest 10% of the UK population (£7.8bn).

Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, Ben Phillips, said: "Britain is becoming a deeply divided nation, with a wealthy elite who are seeing their incomes spiral up, while millions of families are struggling to make ends meet.

"It's deeply worrying that these extreme levels of wealth inequality exist in Britain today, where just a handful of people have more money than millions struggling to survive on the breadline."

The UK study follows an Oxfam report earlier this year which found that the wealth of 85 global billionaires is equivalent to that of half the world's population – or 3.5 billion people.

Oxfam said the wealth gap in the UK was becoming more entrenched as a result of the ability of the better off to capture the lion's share of the proceeds of growth. Since the mid-1990s, the incomes of the top 0.1% have grown by £461 a week or £24,000 a year. By contrast, the bottom 90% have seen a real terms increase of only £2.82 a week or £147 a year.

The charity said the trends in income had been made even more adverse by increases in the cost of living over the past decade. "Since 2003 the majority of the British public (95%) have seen a 12% real terms drop in their disposable income after housing costs, while the richest 5% of the population have seen their disposable income increase."

for the first time more working households were in poverty than non-working ones, and predicted that the number of children living below the poverty line could increase by 800,000 by 2020. It said cuts to social security and public services were meshing with falling real incomes and a rising cost of living to create a "deeply damaging situation" in which millions were struggling to get by.

The IMF recently released research showing that the ever-greater concentration of wealth and income hindered growth and said redistribution would not just reduce inequality but would be economically beneficial.


"On average, across countries and over time, the things that governments have typically done to redistribute do not seem to have led to bad growth outcomes, unless they were extreme", the IMF said in a research paper. "And the resulting narrowing of inequality helped support faster and more durable growth, apart from ethical, political or broader social considerations."


Phillips said: "Increasing inequality is a sign of economic failure rather than success. It's far from inevitable – a result of political choices that can be reversed. It's time for our leaders to stand up and be counted on this issue.""


Millions of working families and individuals are tightening their belts and have falling living standards, with more to come, through no fault of their own, whilst the rich, many of whom are at fault, get richer.

It seems that if you have a car, a house and a widescreen TV (or as it's more commonly know these days "a TV"), then you should be just be grateful that you're not living in a cellar or the fucking workhouse.

You may not have noticed, but most people are sick of seeing the few make-hay off the back of globalisation, whilst the many get worse off... Therefore, it isn't fair.

At last there's an actual choice to be had in this election, and many, like me, are right up for it. FTR I've only ever voted Labour once before. On June 8th it'll be the 2nd time.

I voted to remain in the EU, but I really could see what people's problems with the EU were/are. I understood that people felt out of control and left behind... but in the end I went for the safety first option. You might say I was being conservative, but now we're leaving and the game has changed massively!

We need to take back control of, profit from and invest in our utilities, infrastructure and people.

We need to reduce inequality/relative poverty because, not only is that fair, but as the IMF say "narrowing of inequality helps support faster and more durable growth... apart from (those pesky) ethical, political or broader social considerations."

but the Tory policy would affect those rich people you mention the most would it not?

 

[Ric]

So you Are saying labour don't believe in taxing the rich more?

Again, no. That's another straw man.

You said that the Tory's policy on social care was "a labour type policy all day long". I merely said that was disingenuous because Labour have never advocated a similar approach to social care.

 

[MellowJoe]

Again, no. That's another straw man.

You said that the Tory's policy on social care was "a labour type policy all day long". I merely said that was disingenuous because Labour have never advocated a similar approach to social care.

So, in your opinion, what was it? Was is a masterstroke? A little tempter to Corbyn, that he'd denounce quickly in the competition without real thought, thus only help the Cons reap the benefits later when the public caught up with it? Either way it seems May fucked up, or was trying to be too clever.

 

[The perfect fumble]

He's being honest. I've never seen a leader gamble so much on honesty

It's not really a gamble. Corbyn has had a life long commitment to nuclear disarmament, he couldn't distance himself from it for cheap political reasons even if he were tempted, which he's not.

I've no idea what goes on in Corbyn's head, but he's not an idiot, I'm sure he hopes he can win, but I'm also sure he knows it's not a probability. I doubt very much he has too many sleepless nights worrying about the outcome of a cabinet/parliamentary battle he's never likely to fight.

 

[Ric]

So, in your opinion, what was it? Was is a masterstroke? A little tempter to Corbyn, that he'd denounce quickly in the competition without real thought, thus only help the Cons reap the benefits later when the public caught up with it? Either way it seems May fucked up, or was trying to be too clever.

Ha, I think it was far from a "masterstroke". A master fuck-up, perhaps. Hence the complete u-turn from our "strong and stable" Prime Minister.

 

[1.618034]

but the Tory policy would affect those rich people you mention the most would it not?

It wouldn't affect those rich people at all really, because the cost to them, if they were unlucky enough to get dementia, would be miniscule in comparison to their estates.

For everyone else, that is the relatively wealthy, it just isn't fair. That's why Labour, or anyone else have never proposed such a thing.

If the richest individuals and companies paid a little more, or in some cases, some tax then we could solve the problem for everyone, fairly.

There's a key word that I'm using and tbf I think you're missing it.

 

[hilts]

Again, no. That's another straw man.

You said that the Tory's policy on social care was "a labour type policy all day long". I merely said that was disingenuous because Labour have never advocated a similar approach to social care.

Look at the sentence - a labour type policy -

I never said it was their social care policy past or present. It is a policy that would hit the richest hardest. That is more a labour type policy. If you think that is not the case fair enough. You state the policy is unfair which was my immediate reaction so what is labours fairer policy on social care

 

[MellowJoe]

Well the u-turn is the whole problem.. was it a shit policy or not? - The way I understood it, it was progressive.

 

[Ric]

Look at the sentence - a labour type policy -

I never said it was their social care policy past or present. It is a policy that would hit the richest hardest. That is more a labour type policy. If you think that is not the case fair enough. You state the policy is unfair which was my immediate reaction so what is labours fairer policy on social care

We could probably spend the whole night arguing about semantics, but I suspect we both have better things to do with our time so I will bid you goodnight mate.

 

[hilts]

It wouldn't affect those rich people at all really, because the cost to them, if they were unlucky enough to get dementia, would be miniscule in comparison to their estates.

For everyone else, that is the relatively wealthy, it just isn't fair. That's why Labour, or anyone else have never proposed such a thing.

If the richest individuals and companies paid a little more, or in some cases, some tax then we could solve the problem for everyone, fairly.

There's a key word that I'm using and tbf I think you're missing it.

I'm not missing anything we are talking about social care and you posted about several rich people and the gap between rich and poor in general. So how does this policy help the rich? What fair policy do you have?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So, in your opinion, what was it? Was is a masterstroke? A little tempter to Corbyn, that he'd denounce quickly in the competition without real thought, thus only help the Cons reap the benefits later when the public caught up with it? Either way it seems May fucked up, or was trying to be too clever.

May isn't a collegiate politician who consults widely on policy. She relies on a small circle of advisers, who took no account of the Dilnott Report in formulating their manifesto policy on social care. She more or less makes policy on the fly, as we've seen on a number of occasions where she's had to do a U-turn because the policy she's thought up hasn't been thought through.

Even Thatcher consulted her ministers. She was clear on the broad strategy she wanted but relied on them to actually formulate a policy and implement it. There were policies she thought didn't go far enough to meeting her objectives but she still supported them. If a minister wasn't delivering what she wanted consistently then they were sacked but the minister did the work and lived or died by their delivery.

 

[hilts]

We could probably spend the whole night arguing about semantics, but I suspect we both have better things to do with our time so I will bid you goodnight mate.

I could take that to mean Labour doesn't have a fairer policy but fair play. Another time maybe

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Even Thatcher consulted her ministers. She was clear on the broad strategy she wanted but relied on them to actually formulate a policy and implement it. There were policies she thought didn't go far enough to meeting her objectives but she still supported them. If a minister wasn't delivering what she wanted consistently then they were sacked but the minister did the work and lived or died by their delivery.

Interesting analysis of Thatcher. She was a hugely complicated person. A remarkable human being, despite her manifest faults.

 

[hilts]

May isn't a collegiate politician who consults widely on policy. She relies on a small circle of advisers, who took no account of the Dilnott Report in formulating their manifesto policy on social care. She more or less makes policy on the fly, as we've seen on a number of occasions where she's had to do a U-turn because the policy she's thought up hasn't been thought through.

Even Thatcher consulted her ministers. She was clear on the broad strategy she wanted but relied on them to actually formulate a policy and implement it. There were policies she thought didn't go far enough to meeting her objectives but she still supported them. If a minister wasn't delivering what she wanted consistently then they were sacked but the minister did the work and lived or died by their delivery.

I think it was more a backlash from her own voters and Labour's bizarre protection of the rich which the idiots fell for that did it. She fucked up on politics not policy.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting analysis of Thatcher. She was a hugely complicated person. A remarkable human being, despite her manifest faults.

She was quite remarkable in that through force of will she overcame the civil service and the general political attitude that the UK was in a gentle decline that had to be managed carefully. In forming her first cabinet she was very mindful that she had to include all shades of opinion in it, including the group that became known as the 'wets'.

Jim Prior was in that group and when you read her memoirs you sense her exasperation with him as Employment Secretary, when she felt his employment law/trade union reforms didn't go far enough and he was trying too hard to placate the unions. So she shifted him to Northern Ireland but still seems to have held him in high regard and would probably have given him another cabinet post (almost not one related to the economy) if he hadn't resigned, even though they were diametrically opposed on some fundamental economic issues. The more established she became, the more she felt she could surround herself with people who understood what she wanted. She obviously had people like Alan Walters who advised her on economic matters but she wasn't afraid to reject some of his advice if necessary. Had she repudiated his backing of the poll tax then she might have been remembered a little more fondly however.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think it was more a backlash from her own voters and Labour's bizarre protection of the rich which the idiots fell for that did it. She fucked up on politics not policy.

Which is what I thought I'd said. Politics is about formulating credible policies, communicating those effectively and implementing them well. She failed dismally on the first two.