Snap General Election?
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
The labour party supporter is one who feels they a have a right to the wealth that others have taken risks, used what intelligence they have, (and luck) and worked hard for, for no other reason, than the other person has it, and they don't.
They feel entitled to what the `rich' have, but don't want to take the same risks, or work as hard/intelligently as those who have acquired whatever wealth they have., and feel it should be just be handed to them on a plate.
Not happy to be in a low paid job, or no job at all? then do something about it, but expect to have to work very hard for whatever is achieved , or do you think the person who sweeps the factory yard, is really worth the same as the person who created the factory and all the jobs in it?
The world owes no one a living, so don't expect to be handed one. But all too often the labour supporter wants the same wealth as the `rich' whilst having no real idea what those who achieve wealth did to acquire it.
There is nothing stopping anyone in this country, from the poorest from achieving any level of wealth they might desire, other than their own intelligence, and work ethic. Being poor does not mean a person is unintelligent. being poor does not mean they cannot rise above the position they were handed in the first place. It just takes the correct mind set, but all too often the labour supporter does not have the correct mind set, and just plays the victim card/its someone all else`s fault, at the first sign of difficulty.
To me that just says you don't understand social democracy. They feel entitled to what the `rich' have, but don't want to take the same risks, or work as hard/intelligently as those who have acquired whatever wealth they have., and feel it should be just be handed to them on a plate.
Not happy to be in a low paid job, or no job at all? then do something about it, but expect to have to work very hard for whatever is achieved , or do you think the person who sweeps the factory yard, is really worth the same as the person who created the factory and all the jobs in it?
The world owes no one a living, so don't expect to be handed one. But all too often the labour supporter wants the same wealth as the `rich' whilst having no real idea what those who achieve wealth did to acquire it.
There is nothing stopping anyone in this country, from the poorest from achieving any level of wealth they might desire, other than their own intelligence, and work ethic. Being poor does not mean a person is unintelligent. being poor does not mean they cannot rise above the position they were handed in the first place. It just takes the correct mind set, but all too often the labour supporter does not have the correct mind set, and just plays the victim card/its someone all else`s fault, at the first sign of difficulty.
You say the world doesn't owe anyone a living but you surely aren't suggesting that because we all enter the world equal - naked and helpless - we remain that way?
No - because the fortunate child's parents will nourish and protect him and he will prosper with this headstart.
The unfortunate child who is uncared for and malnourished (literally and figuratively) will struggle and fail or become resentful perhaps criminal and a burden on, or an enemy of, the fortunate child.
So, help the bloody unfortunate child and stop this happening.
It's a duty (Christian or otherwise) and a responsibilty, of those who have a lot to help those who have little - not just out of fear that otherwise they'll come and take it off you - but because otherwise we're not even civilised.
Gargamel said:
footnote said:
Well, you tell me how much you're willing to pay to live here.
There wouldn't be universities if they relied only the people who could afford to pay the full and total cost of the education of their kids - because there wouldn't be enough of those people to make it worthwhile running a university.
Equally, the universities were built and the infrastructure created from the taxes on working people long gone - you're not paying for all that you get - you're paying for the milk - you didn't grow the cow or create the farm.
You don't get nothing from the state - you and you're family and everybody else here, gets to live in a safe democracy where you will be cared for free of charge when your car hits a wall or your demented dad gets lost or your kid falls down a well.
And their are aome people who enjoy all of those benefits and pay nothing for them at all. How is that fair ?There wouldn't be universities if they relied only the people who could afford to pay the full and total cost of the education of their kids - because there wouldn't be enough of those people to make it worthwhile running a university.
Equally, the universities were built and the infrastructure created from the taxes on working people long gone - you're not paying for all that you get - you're paying for the milk - you didn't grow the cow or create the farm.
You don't get nothing from the state - you and you're family and everybody else here, gets to live in a safe democracy where you will be cared for free of charge when your car hits a wall or your demented dad gets lost or your kid falls down a well.
It's not fair and the abusers need sorting , if only from the point of the abusers are depriving the genuinely needy. No one in their right mind would advocate financially supporting wasters and I don't see anyone promoting that view.
footnote said:
To me that just says you don't understand social democracy.
You say the world doesn't owe anyone a living but you surely aren't suggesting that because we all enter the world equal - naked and helpless - we remain that way?
No - because the fortunate child's parents will nourish and protect him and he will prosper with this headstart.
The unfortunate child who is uncared for and malnourished (literally and figuratively) will struggle and fail or become resentful perhaps criminal and a burden on, or an enemy of, the fortunate child.
So, help the bloody unfortunate child and stop this happening.
It's a duty (Christian or otherwise) and a responsibilty, of those who have a lot to help those who have little - not just out of fear that otherwise they'll come and take it off you - but because otherwise we're not even civilised.
Entirely reasonable, depending on why they have 'little'...You say the world doesn't owe anyone a living but you surely aren't suggesting that because we all enter the world equal - naked and helpless - we remain that way?
No - because the fortunate child's parents will nourish and protect him and he will prosper with this headstart.
The unfortunate child who is uncared for and malnourished (literally and figuratively) will struggle and fail or become resentful perhaps criminal and a burden on, or an enemy of, the fortunate child.
So, help the bloody unfortunate child and stop this happening.
It's a duty (Christian or otherwise) and a responsibilty, of those who have a lot to help those who have little - not just out of fear that otherwise they'll come and take it off you - but because otherwise we're not even civilised.
Yipper said:
None of the "bad stuff" is sticking to Teflon Corbyn.
Seriously, you are way off the mark.He's outperformed expectation and has surprised a few people.
The "bad stuff" has well and truly stuck with many, many people.
Even on here we have people saying how pissed off they are with May and the Tories but they can't countenance voting for Corbyn. This is repeated in many, many places.
I am sure he will do better than the complete and utter annihilation that looked on the cards at the start of the campaign, but let's not pretend he's sweeping through Britain on his way to Number 10.
gooner1 said:
Gargamel said:
footnote said:
Well, you tell me how much you're willing to pay to live here.
.
And their are aome people who enjoy all of those benefits and pay nothing for them at all. How is that fair ?.
It's not fair and the abusers need sorting , if only from the point of the abusers are depriving the genuinely needy. No one in their right mind would advocate financially supporting wasters and I don't see anyone promoting that view.
What if the answer is absolutely nothing. There are a number of people who choose or for other reasons pay nothing.
We accept largely that those with the most, pay the most. However there comes a point in rising taxation, where it will no longer be accepted and other strategies come to the fore.
Plus there is a basic question here of welfarism. Why should doing nothing and receiving much be a choice ?
footnote said:
Don't be daft. Wealth and privilege are the bedrocks of the establishment in this country.
The entire country and political system was devised by the wealthy to ensure they stay wealthy unless they f
k up disastrously.
Ah, so you actually are upset that there is an establishment that you don't like. I'm afraid history is not on your side here... those who are in power do what they can to stay in power, regardless of their political leanings. Corbyn would abolish land ownership if he could, Putin keeps an iron grip on power, China is kept in control, Trump has wealthy backers, May and co have friends in the city.The entire country and political system was devised by the wealthy to ensure they stay wealthy unless they f
k up disastrously.On the whole though, I value democracy, personal freedoms, opportunity for all matched with individual responsibility. The side effect of that is that some people will be immensely richer than I am - but all of the evidence is that they pull the rest of us up with them. You can do the economic analysis and it's the countries with the insanely rich that also have the least poor, and the highest average quality of life.
The campaigners will go on about the 'wealth gap', because those handful of outliers do indeed earn many many times more than the poorest have to live on - but the fact is that the 'poor' in the UK are fantastically better off than the poor in China, Russia, all of the Middle East and so on. That doesn't mean we can't do more to help them, but I'll call you a liar if you try to say that this country is worse off than all but a handful of others. Even though we have a Duke who owns vast tracts of land.
The other interesting thing is that the insanely wealthy are also the ones who tend to make the big advancements. Steam trains were a plaything for rich aristocrats, the car was a toy for the wealthy - and now Elon Musk is building electric cars and space rockets. Without those wealthy patrons, these things would never have been built. It's noticeable that since the UK is currently doing much worse than it used to for producing the super rich, we're also doing much worse for innovation.
Oh, and historically, all but a handful of the wealthy do eventually f
k up disastrously. That's why the National Trust has all those nice buildings to go stand in and why most people are able to own their own homes in the UK.I'm tired of the campaign it's just the same attack the other party nonesense or it seems like it, it feels like labour are getting more limelight in the news both critically and promoting via my news feed atleast.
Most of my friends are not really posting Tory stuff just a few left wing typical university lectures constantly sharing pro labour crap, but most people I speak to say they are voting Tory so I think there is a large silent Tory vote that's not being highlighted by the pollsters
Most of my friends are not really posting Tory stuff just a few left wing typical university lectures constantly sharing pro labour crap, but most people I speak to say they are voting Tory so I think there is a large silent Tory vote that's not being highlighted by the pollsters
footnote said:
But if you are wealthy, stop pretending you're self-made and didn't benefit from free education, free hospitals and healthcare, free infrastructure that generations built and died for and didn't benefit from only for you to say feck them - I did it all myself - if you are wealthy - pay more fecking tax and live with it and be fecking happy that you live in a safe country that looks after the less fortunate.
There is no free education, hospitals and healthcare. They're just taken from an invisible pot of money people contribute to. And the issue is we are not paying for it - we're just increasing the debt everyone has to pay in the future. And so Labour (and to be honest the Conservatives) always increasing the money to the NHS just means the people alive benefit from it, but their children will inherit the debt and yet not get the benefit of the healthcare, as at some point costs will have to be cut/ the country will go bankrupt. So I agree with your view we should look after people etc - but to me it is more immoral to vote for Labour who will spend future generations money looking after more people now, rather than make it harder for some people now but better in the long term.Also I know almost no rich people who object to paying a bit more tax - the issue is when it becomes too much. As someone said, what is too much? With the country's current financial situation everyone should be paying more tax but not getting more government spending on them in return. But that would be a massive vote loser, so won't happen.
Interesting read here http://ht.ly/yEU330c9dVA suggesting lead could still be 100ish or so.
Which in turn leads to voter turnout in various age groups.
Can Corbyn turn the younger end out?
That last upswing is of course the EU Referendum, a very different proposition to a GE, plus of course the 18-24 are still bottom, not to mention, as TB keeps reminding us, are outnumbered 2 to 1 by the oldies, on top of which significantly higher turnout %.
Which in turn leads to voter turnout in various age groups.
Can Corbyn turn the younger end out?
That last upswing is of course the EU Referendum, a very different proposition to a GE, plus of course the 18-24 are still bottom, not to mention, as TB keeps reminding us, are outnumbered 2 to 1 by the oldies, on top of which significantly higher turnout %.
footnote said:
You don't get nothing from the state - you and you're family and everybody else here, gets to live in a safe democracy where you will be cared for free of charge when your car hits a wall or your demented dad gets lost or your kid falls down a well.
Interesting point of view. So at what point does the average person's tax contribution balance their benefits? I suspect I'm in credit by quite some margin even compared to many of the layabouts we seem to share the country with. As I've already stated, I pay for medical insurance, I pay for my children's education and my parents will most likely foot their own bills for care in their old age. What you seem to be arguing is as well as paying for myself, and others, I'm still not paying enough and people like me should pay still more as a punishment for trying hard in life?
We all want the free stuff whilst somebody else is prepared to pay for it. Maybe the answer is to say "f
k it", take a lower paid job, enjoy a local commute, shorter hours and enjoy all the benefits that apparently everyone is entitled to? ...Actually, that sounds great!
Gargamel said:
gooner1 said:
Gargamel said:
footnote said:
Well, you tell me how much you're willing to pay to live here.
.
And their are aome people who enjoy all of those benefits and pay nothing for them at all. How is that fair ?.
It's not fair and the abusers need sorting , if only from the point of the abusers are depriving the genuinely needy. No one in their right mind would advocate financially supporting wasters and I don't see anyone promoting that view.
What if the answer is absolutely nothing. There are a number of people who choose or for other reasons pay nothing.
We accept largely that those with the most, pay the most. However there comes a point in rising taxation, where it will no longer be accepted and other strategies come to the fore.
Plus there is a basic question here of welfarism. Why should doing nothing and receiving much be a choice ?
Not to defend that, but even the most capitalist society needs unemployment or else the workers become too powerful.
I'm also not trusting enough of any government to believe that they don't sometimes find it very useful to have scapegoats and an underclass on whom they can blame all the ills of the world.
But ultimately, I don't want to be dragged down to treating any people like s
t. Okay, I suffer the loss of an amount of tax but what's the alternative?
If I can't tolerate some element of institutional welfare abuse then I would be forced to withdraw all services from otherwise deserving/working people in order to 'punish' the undeserving and that's just not right.
desolate said:
I am sure he will do better than the complete and utter annihilation that looked on the cards at the start of the campaign, but let's not pretend he's sweeping through Britain on his way to Number 10.
I don't think he'll have to in order to claim a victory. He'll suggest, no doubt, that he was the one who brought the party together and that it was those who didn't mention his name, or who criticised him, who stopped the party gaining more seats, even enough to form a coalition, or some such. The fear is that he will cement his position in the party and gain influence over it. The moderates in his party, and that's others as well as MPs, will be marginalised and then excluded. The knives are being sharpened and it won't be long after what Corbyn and his acolytes will call an endorsement of socialist principles that they will be used.
And all because of a pointless general election.
Obviously there's no way he's marching into #10. At least not after this election. However, at the next he won't be at the top of his party; the left wingers will see to that. Someone else will be, someone more to the left, and with better PR. If Brexit doesn't please everyone then dissatisfied voters might look elsewhere and it doesn't take all that many to make a significant difference.
The only thing that can save a moderate labour party is annihilation, and the latest polls suggest this ain't going to happen.
May, for her own reasons as well as those of her party, needs to increase the tory majority, and by some margin.
Two weeks ago I read/saw/heard (can't recall) that Corbyn and Momentum's sole objective was to increase the share of the vote over that which Miliband achieved. That would be taken as vindication of the direction that he has taken the party, and lay the groundwork for a further shift in the future.
Derek Smith said:
desolate said:
I am sure he will do better than the complete and utter annihilation that looked on the cards at the start of the campaign, but let's not pretend he's sweeping through Britain on his way to Number 10.
I don't think he'll have to in order to claim a victory. He'll suggest, no doubt, that he was the one who brought the party together and that it was those who didn't mention his name, or who criticised him, who stopped the party gaining more seats, even enough to form a coalition, or some such. The fear is that he will cement his position in the party and gain influence over it. The moderates in his party, and that's others as well as MPs, will be marginalised and then excluded.
Derek Smith said:
I don't think he'll have to in order to claim a victory. He'll suggest, no doubt, that he was the one who brought the party together and that it was those who didn't mention his name, or who criticised him, who stopped the party gaining more seats, even enough to form a coalition, or some such.
The fear is that he will cement his position in the party and gain influence over it. The moderates in his party, and that's others as well as MPs, will be marginalised and then excluded. The knives are being sharpened and it won't be long after what Corbyn and his acolytes will call an endorsement of socialist principles that they will be used.
And all because of a pointless general election.
So if someone loses and yet continues to try and hold onto power/ their supporters try and get more power it is due to a pointless election? That just says how much of an issue/ how poor the moderate labour wing are if they cannot use a big defeat to gain back power. Nothing to do with a pointless election.The fear is that he will cement his position in the party and gain influence over it. The moderates in his party, and that's others as well as MPs, will be marginalised and then excluded. The knives are being sharpened and it won't be long after what Corbyn and his acolytes will call an endorsement of socialist principles that they will be used.
And all because of a pointless general election.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
I think the only strategic thinking the Tories have done is that due to high poll leads they have scaled back on some of their costly commitments to the elderly as they believe they can win regardless.Anything else making the campaign "rubbish" in anyone's eyes is either incompetence on the Tories part or that the message isn't targeted at them.
wormus said:
Interesting point of view. So at what point does the average person's tax contribution balance their benefits?
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
joshcowin said:
No, one reason why I don't vote!! Why vote for something you don't believe in, you wouldn't do it in any other aspect of your life!
No one in Westminster represents me or my views so I stay clear of the whole mess. However I have to live in this country where their decisions affect me so I am somewhat interested in what people think about current matters.
Stand?No one in Westminster represents me or my views so I stay clear of the whole mess. However I have to live in this country where their decisions affect me so I am somewhat interested in what people think about current matters.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff