The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[mjmooney]

40 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

Just looked at James Morris's voting history (Halesowen & Rowley Regis). 

Proper Tory whip it seems. 

- Against anything to do with raising benefits (including for disabled people).

- For lowering Corporate taxes

- Against anything immigration

- For UK not abiding by EU forest protection laws (And he's the face of "Save Halesowens Green Belt"  )

- For privatising the Post Office back in the day 

- Against gay marriage laws 

- Against Human rights laws 

- For Nukes & anything spending on military 

- Against EU right to remain nationals for those who have spend significant time here

- Against guaranteeing jobs for young people out of work for a long period 

- Against taxing more for people earning over £150k 

- Against more tax to be paid by banks

- Against restricting private patients services paid by the NHS

- Against the Youth-in-Asia 

- For increasing Uni fees

- For Academies 

- Against supporting 16-19 year olds in further education 

He's getting more popular within the constituency as well it seems, from winning by 3,000 votes in 2015 - to 6,000 votes in 2017.

I think the majority of people in the constituency will not benefit from that type of person in charge, where it's one of the poorer constituencies based on income/age etc. 

Very strange. 

Yeah, but they'll get their freedom back. 

[HanoiVillan]

By the way: register to vote. Time's nearly up. You can register at the link:

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

[welnik]

23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There appears to be a broad agreement that the retirement age will need to be raised slightly, However, as @Dr_Pangloss says, there are very good reasons why people cannot continue working much beyond the current state retirement age. 

In addition, this isn't really the argument being discussed at this election; the question is whether it was fair for the coalition to raise the retirement age for women further without compensating them, not whether it makes sense to raise the retirement age in principle.

You're correct that pensions and social care are going to take a larger and larger amount of money in the future (though I'm not sure how much life expectancy is rising, if it is at all). However, you know what would help with that problem: some pro-growth macro-economic policies!

Like loading the taxpayers with an extra £53 billion on top of the rest of the avalanche! What could possibly go wrong! 

[snowychap]

On the basis of that, when the released model predicts a handsome Tory majority expect it to be talked of as written in stone.

[StefanAVFC]

I absolutely cannot be arsed with the hundreds of thousands of turkeys voting for Christmas.

[Sam-AVFC]

4 minutes ago, welnik said:

Like loading the taxpayers with an extra £53 billion on top of the rest of the avalanche! What could possibly go wrong! 

Is it an annual figure or is that a total cost to compensate those effected?

If it's the latter, I don't see it being a huge problem as it's around the same as our annual deficit. Adding the equivalent of one year's additional borrowing deficit in order to help seems a very reasonable compromise to me and hardly crippling. If it's an annual figure I can see why people are more concerned...although presumably only an annual figure for 5 years still?

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, welnik said:

So because we are living longer this is just something else that is costing more and more. It won't be too long till there are a significant portion of the elderly who have been retired longer than they had been working if they retired at 65! We can't afford to fund that much, so we have to work longer, it's common sense 

Nobody is arguing against a need to revisit retirement age. You’re making up an argument that you can then argue against.
People are stating its unfair on poorly paid women to change the rules on them just before what they thought was retirement age. Surely you can see that’s just basically unfair? 
Try and imagine working for 40 years and then being told the finishing line just moved by 5 years and if you can’t carry on in your current job then you have to go on the benefits system and prove you’re looking for work or we’ll also take your benefits off you too.

Typical tory dirty water line ring around the bath, to soften the more accurate description of them.

 

[bobzy]

31 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I absolutely cannot be arsed with the hundreds of thousands of turkeys voting for Christmas.

If you accept poverty and just hate immigrants...

[peterms]

42 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I absolutely cannot be arsed with the hundreds of thousands of turkeys voting for Christmas.

It's the talk of an oven-ready deal that's swayed them.

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

its unfair on poorly paid women to change the rules on them just before what they thought was retirement age. Surely you can see that’s just basically unfair? 
Try and imagine working for 40 years and then being told the finishing line just moved by 5 years

When was the law changed? A while back, surely? And it's not working pensions, is it? it's state pension, I thought? Anyone entitled to a work pension is unaffected (in terms of that pension) aren't they? It's not been done well, and definitely people with little income, who thought they'd get something from the state when they were 60 have been left high and dry, to an extent.

BUT, I'm not convinced from what you've all said on here that "unfair" is the right term for it at all. The courts found that women were given unfair preference in getting pensions 5 years earlier than men, that much is true. And as a consequence, the preference was gradually withdrawn (not overnight, but what, 5, 10, 15 years after?).

The pension age should be equalised between men and women, shouldn't it? The people who stop gaining a long held and unlawful "advantage" but who nevertheless actually need help ought to be given help, but for every one of your "poorly paid women" there are no doubt other comfortably-off women. Help, if you're talking fairness, should go to those who need it based on need, not gender or age - not  to anyone of female gender only between 60 and 65, whether they need it or not.

[Awol]

53 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I absolutely cannot be arsed with the hundreds of thousands of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Let's be frank, if Labour wasn't led by a cabal of Jew-baiting, crypto-Marxists then they'd walk this election - but they are. When (if) Labour comes to its senses the Tories will be screwed, but until then common sense seems to be prevailing, thank goodness. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Let's be frank, if Labour wasn't led by a cabal of Jew-baiting, crypto-Marxists then they'd walk this election - but they are. When (if) Labour comes to its senses the Tories will be screwed, but until then common sense seems to be prevailing, thank goodness. 

You're not wrong. I wouldn't use such strong language, but I agree with the general sentiment.

However, there's nothing 'thank goodness' about the Tories getting another 5 years to continue to destroy the country.

Edited November 25, 2019 by StefanAVFC

[welnik]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

You're not wrong. I wouldn't use such strong language, but I agree with the general sentiment.

However, there's nothing 'thank goodness' about the Tories getting another 5 years to continue to destroy the country.

Apart from certain bancrutpcy under Labour of course! But at least then we'll all be equally poor! Food banks here we come 

[Awol]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

You're not wrong. I wouldn't use such strong language, but I agree with the general sentiment.

However, there's nothing 'thank goodness' about the Tories getting another 5 years to continue to destroy the country.

I'm not thrilled about the Tories either, but at least there'll still be a country in five years. When Labour casually threw out a £58 billion spending commitment yesterday, just as a post-manifesto aside, it was pretty clear they're not serious about what they're saying now. Which begs the question, what is their plan?  

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'm not thrilled about the Tories either, but at least there'll still be a country in five years. When Labour casually threw out a £58 billion spending commitment yesterday, just as a post-manifesto aside, it was pretty clear they're not serious about what they're saying now. Which begs the question, what is their plan?  

I saw something on Twitter (i know) that the Labour planned spending sits well within median range compared to other European nations. Can't find it now.

Different strokes. I'd rather take a risk with extra spending so we will still have a health service in a few years time.

I'd rather neither tbh my strength of detest for both the Tories and especially Johnson swings it.

Edited November 25, 2019 by StefanAVFC

[colhint]

I can't understand what Labour are trying to do.  They say they have costed everything, to make it seem credible. Then a few days later bang this. Why didn't they put it in the Manifesto?  And why did they vote to extend free movement of people the leave it out of the manifesto?

[snowychap]

21 minutes ago, welnik said:

Apart from certain bancrutpcy under Labour of course!

Apart from the whole sovereign currency/bankruptcy issue...

Edited November 25, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, colhint said:

And why did they vote to extend free movement of people the leave it out of the manifesto?

From Labour List:

Quote

...

The meeting that signs off the manifesto is called the ‘Clause V’ meeting, taking its name from Clause V of the Labour Party rulebook. So, what exactly is the Clause V meeting – and how does it work?

The leader of the Labour Party chairs the Clause V meeting, which is attended by the national executive committee (NEC), relevant shadow cabinet members and senior trade union representatives. All NEC members are able to attend (unless they are suspended).

Labour conference votes on motions that set the agenda and priorities for policy discussions for the year. The national policy forum (NPF) discusses these policies ahead of the manifesto writing process. In a normal election cycle, this takes place over a number of years. If there is a snap election, the process is sped up and simplified.

...

The first vote was a conference motion (i.e. something to set the agenda and priorities for policy discussions); the decision as to what to incllude in their manifesto is then taken at the Clause V meeting.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

When was the law changed? A while back, surely? And it's not working pensions, is it? it's state pension, I thought? Anyone entitled to a work pension is unaffected (in terms of that pension) aren't they? It's not been done well, and definitely people with little income, who thought they'd get something from the state when they were 60 have been left high and dry, to an extent.

BUT, I'm not convinced from what you've all said on here that "unfair" is the right term for it at all. The courts found that women were given unfair preference in getting pensions 5 years earlier than men, that much is true. And as a consequence, the preference was gradually withdrawn (not overnight, but what, 5, 10, 15 years after?).

The pension age should be equalised between men and women, shouldn't it? The people who stop gaining a long held and unlawful "advantage" but who nevertheless actually need help ought to be given help, but for every one of your "poorly paid women" there are no doubt other comfortably-off women. Help, if you're talking fairness, should go to those who need it based on need, not gender or age - not  to anyone of female gender only between 60 and 65, whether they need it or not.

the Tory government introduced the policy  in 1995 mainly as it was ruled illegal by the ECHR that women had a lower retirement age than men  , they gave everyone 15 -20  years notice   .. the coalition then accelerated the timetimeline in 2011 and  reduced it by 2 years , but still giving everyone 7 years notice of intent

 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by tonyh29
corrected party in charge

[lapal_fan]

I genuinely don't understand the Corbyn is a Marxist/anti-semite thing.

What has he done (or the labour party in that respect)?

It's not a good look to me (uninformed).