The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[KHV]

18 hours ago, villakram said:

So, per Lord Ashcroft. The 60+ crowd screwed the rest of the population, again.

Act accordingly.

The 60 plus crowd did not screw the population

 

[hippo]

Heard it said that a lot of Labour resources was targeted at seats it was never going to win - Including a futile attempt to unseat Boris Johnson. Demonstrates how inward thinking they are - it surrounds itself with like minded people - and gets a false view of the demographic.

It regards the fact that Boris Johnson won't say the word "Austerity" - but will do it anyway - as a success.

[Awol]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Wow man, the BBC have really done their work on you. 

Hope it’s worth the license fee.

It’s spelt EHRC. 

[peterms]

28 minutes ago, Risso said:

He said: "We all accept there has to be more money to go into the system. You can pay it just out of general taxation and say it's all free, but that means that people who are currently taxpayers - that are currently 30, 40, 50s now - will have to pay towards their own care at the end of life but also they'll instantly start paying for the older generation's care as well, which I think to put it mildly has fairness implications to it.

"Or you can try some kind of insurance system so that those who can afford to take out an insurance policy should be encouraged to do so, which will buy them peace of mind."

If you accept for a moment his framing that government spending comes from gathering tax in (which is a separate discussion), what he says is wrong.  Since you can't go back in time and create insurance policies for all the people who haven't had them and now need care, than what he proposes is that those in work should now pay for their own insurance for the future, while those who haven't had insurance will still need to be provided for from general government spending.  So it is his proposal that people should now start paying for their own future care, while also continuing to pay for the care of those who haven't had decades of insurance policies building up.  It is his proposal that creates the "paying twice" scenario, not the current system.  Or does he mean that these insurance policies should be paid for by cutting the tax of those taking them out so that we abandon national insurance in favour of personal insurance - in which case, there is a loss of the government revenue which he sees as paying for care costs?

[chrisp65]

It’s not fair to have to support others, lets switch to an insurance based system.

Well done everyone, well done all the greedy selfish ****. 

 

[blandy]

40 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I am so angry that Labour has failed the millions of people who desperately needed their help. Not the nasty Tories, not the biased media, not the Brexit issue but Labour for failing to convince enough people, after 10 years of destructive Tory rule, to vote for them. 

The sooner those of the wing now running Labour own their failings instead of blaming outside influences the quicker the party can start to get themselves into a position to be in power rather than forever in opposition.

This a million times over. Been saying it and angry about it for years - Corbyn can't win, won't win, he's a wrong 'un, it just lets the tories off the hook.

It's not an "I told you so" thing - plenty could see it. I'm just, I suppose a bit more hopeful, perversely, now. Despite that whopper winning and the horrors that will no doubt ensue, perhaps Labour can get their act together, drop the cultists and then who knows what's round the corner.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

So it is his proposal that people should now start paying for their own future care, while also continuing to pay for the care of those who haven't had decades of insurance policies building up.  It is his proposal that creates the "paying twice" scenario, not the current system. 

Well, yes. That's right....but if it's the rich that are paying twice, while the poorer are not, then is that bad? It's surely like an additional tax on the rich folk? They pay both tax towards general healthcare and personal insurance for their own future care.

It's not that element which is "wrong", it's the hidden intent (we suspect) isn't it? The "where will it stop"? aspect. The gradual creep of such ideas into "well everyone will get their own insurance in 10, 20 years, while the Taxpayer version is ultimately withered away.

Make it sound vaguely "fair" while sneaking in something that will end up taking away a universal level of cover.

 

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, yes. That's right....but if it's the rich that are paying twice, while the poorer are not, then is that bad? It's surely like an additional tax on the rich folk? They pay both tax towards general healthcare and personal insurance for their own future care.

It's not that element which is "wrong", it's the hidden intent (we suspect) isn't it? The "where will it stop"? aspect. The gradual creep of such ideas into "well everyone will get their own insurance in 10, 20 years, while the Taxpayer version is ultimately withered away.

Make it sound vaguely "fair" while sneaking in something that will end up taking away a universal level of cover.

 

Yes, I think that's right.  Three problems with what he said:

It's a lie (which should not surprise us), because it's his proposal that leads to paying twice.

It's a drift, or possibly a leap, towards a US style arrangement, with higher costs and money being siphoned away in profits.

It will create (more of) a two-tier system with much poorer provision for those at the bottom, and easier to cut, much like the way they managed to transform council housing into a residual sector.

[markavfc40]

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

Been saying it and angry about it for years - Corbyn can't win, won't win, he's a wrong 'un, it just lets the tories off the hook.

It's not an "I told you so" thing - plenty could see it.

I think the trouble has been plenty of us could see it but too many have been guilty of supporting it by not opposing it for fear of putting others off voting Labour. I include myself in that. 

It has been easy to oppose the Tories where I have struggled for the last few years is in getting right behind Labour and that should have told me all I needed to know.

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I think the trouble has been plenty of us could see it but too many have been guilty of supporting it by not opposing it for fear of putting others off voting Labour. I include myself in that. 

It has been easy to oppose the Tories where I have struggled for the last few years is in getting right behind Labour and that should have told me all I needed to know.

It’s been referenced in here plenty of times that there are quite a few anti tory broadly lefty contributors that all claim not to be labour.

It’s true, and you’re comments above could have been written by any one of half a dozen of us on here.

In a way, it’s slightly easier for some of us because we can go and have a dabble with the SNP or whatever. I guess for those in english constituencies the equivalent is the greens?

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I guess for those in english constituencies the equivalent is the greens?

Possibly, Chris. I mean I tend to vote for them, but and it is quite a big but, despite them having some fairly bizarre economical ideas, I do it because I agree with them on the environmental side of things. Sure labour has "adopted" quite a bit of their policy in those areas, but I view it as cynical, I don't Believe they actually believe it, just that they wanted some Green votes. So I don't for them as a "well, if only Labour..." but more out of "they're not gonna be the Government, but at least spread their ideas" kind of thing.

So in my safe tory seat (extended majority) I just vote Green so they get some short money (every vote cast gets the party voted for a few pennies) and maybe the influence of them can be bigger. I couldn't vote in this last election, as my postal vote didn't turn up in time, but they'd have probably got my vote again, though maybe the LDs might have, I dunno. I think something like the German greens would be my ideal-ish party.

[blandy]

50 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

plenty of us could see it but too many have been guilty of supporting it by not opposing it for fear of putting others off voting Labour.

I can honestly say that I'm not that smart. I could see it, but I've never tried or thought about "putting anyone else off". I just wrote what I felt was, y'know, how it was in my world.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s been referenced in here plenty of times that there are quite a few anti tory broadly lefty contributors that all claim not to be labour.

It’s true, and you’re comments above could have been written by any one of half a dozen of us on here.

In a way, it’s slightly easier for some of us because we can go and have a dabble with the SNP or whatever. I guess for those in english constituencies the equivalent is the greens?

A little bit crazy but just throwing it out there... maybe the SNP should consider standing candidates with a progressive social agenda south of he border?!

[chrisp65]

Just now, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

A little bit crazy but just throwing it out there... maybe the SNP should consider standing candidates with a progressive social agenda south of he border?!

Possibly a little early for an invasion, but yeah, that would zing up the dynamic a bit!

They could adopt the Donald Pleasence quote for the campaign ‘I can see, take me with you’.

[HanoiVillan]

50 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

A little bit crazy but just throwing it out there... maybe the SNP should consider standing candidates with a progressive social agenda south of he border?!

To what end?

[Wainy316]

One thing I’ve noticed from the gloating on social media is that people on the right really lack wit don’t they.  I can’t believe how much they’re still flogging the Diane Abbott counting gag.

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

One thing I’ve noticed from the gloating on social media is that people on the right really lack wit don’t they.  I can’t believe how much they’re still flogging the Diane Abbott counting gag.

They lay dormant, sometimes for years, then pop up to exchange ‘bantz’ when they perceive they’ve ‘won’.

They are the same people that support Man Utd in the office. 

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

One thing I’ve noticed from the gloating on social media is that people on the right really lack wit don’t they.  I can’t believe how much they’re still flogging the Diane Abbott counting gag.

Oh ffs, I just realised Dianne **** Abbott got reelected.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Davkaus

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

To what end?

To try to provide a viable left wing alternative to the government, something that the Labour Party don't seem too keen on (capable of?) doing. 

[chrisp65]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Oh ffs, I just realised Dianne **** Abbott got reelected.

One of the safest seats in the country isn’t it?

I’ve no idea if she’s a good local MP, or just the lucky winner of a super safe seat.