Snap General Election?
Discussion
footnote said:
It seems likely that there will always be a percentage of non-productive people.
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.
Don't get me wrong, I am not Genghis Khan, I do believe in the Welfare State to a degree, but the system is far to rigid and open to abuse.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.
The Benefits cap was a good idea, and Housing benefit could do with a thorough reform.
We should always look after disadvantaged people who cannot care for themselves, I would just like to see some "social justice" that focusses on moving people who have made taking benefits a lifestyle choice back into net contributors.
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.
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.
A nice and accurate appraisal, I reckon there.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.
Tuna said:
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 fk 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.http://uk.businessinsider.com/sunday-times-rich-li...
joshcowin said:
The amount of those who have a car given to them is also alarming, I drive a 55 plate car not out of choice, however I know many who are given new cars for basically free. Yes some need a car however I know 3/4 families who do not need the car but are entitled to it and therefore take it!!g
Where the hell are they getting free cars from?Greg66 said:
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.
It is a bit of a meaningless statistic though. Labour getting 35% of the vote isn't much use in returning to government if the Tories get 44%+ and it is the nature of Corbyn and his team that is generating allot of that Tory vote.
That said I think the last few weeks have shown the appeal of an authentic left wing vision. If it was presented by a credible team, and one untainted by past terrorist associations, then it might be able to win.
gooner1 said:
Where the hell are they getting free cars from?
If you qualify for various allowances (mobility component of DLA/PIP) you can put them towards leasing a car on Motability. I guess it's one of the things that have been tightened up recently.Zafiras, Mondeos etc don't cost you extra, or you can put in your own cash and get Audis, BMWs etc
Edited by essayer on Tuesday 30th May 14:55
Halb said:
joshcowin said:
Halb said:
Stand?
What do you mean?
joshcowin said:
Not a chance, I am not qualified to represent anyone else. I also have a massive problem with politics as a whole and what it has turned into.
Seems like the best sort of qualification to me. 
Butcher, baker and candlestick-maker, have MPs who have livd in their constieuncy for a number of years and want the best for the place, not
Ever since I watched it, I think the Yes, Prime Minister episode, Power to the People was a wonderful blueprint for making Parlament supreme over partisan t
ttery.wormus said:
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!
Whilst I'm sure, if asked, everyone who knew they were on the receiving end of your taxes would be really grateful, I'm not sure that's the point.
It's all very well saying I pay for my kids and my parents will pay for their own arses to be wiped but the actual point is that someone else has to actually do it - not you - you're lucky - you're in a job which pays enough that it won't ever make more economic sense for you or your partner to give up work to wipe your dad's bum - because that's what it comes down to.
There are people, and f
k knows I don't know why they do it - because it is most definitely not the money - who work in hospitals and homes and they wash and clean up all the bodily fluids of those who can't do it themselves.They probably have to put up with being told that the person whose arse they're wiping is much richer than them and has sold their big house, and has lots of savings that they are passing on to their grandchildren, through their own efforts because they weren't dumb enough to take a job in a care home wiping arses.
What I'm saying is you can't pay enough for that.
So however much tax you pay having a lovely life, because this is a country of very low taxation, those people do more than you and I and that's why we should pay more tax if we can afford it and we should acknowledge that they give more than ordinary people and should be paid more because they give a part of themselves and they won't ever be able to pay for private schools or private medical care or own their own homes to sell when their arses need wiping.
So, I don't really understand how you could think you're being 'punished' by paying more tax.
Halb said:
Seems like the best sort of qualification to me.
Butcher, baker and candlestick-maker, have MPs who have livd in their constieuncy for a number of years and want the best for the place, notgangs party hacks parachuted into seats.
Ever since I watched it, I think the Yes, Prime Minister episode, Power to the People was a wonderful blueprint for making Parlament supreme over partisan tttery.
I will watch it!!Butcher, baker and candlestick-maker, have MPs who have livd in their constieuncy for a number of years and want the best for the place, not
Ever since I watched it, I think the Yes, Prime Minister episode, Power to the People was a wonderful blueprint for making Parlament supreme over partisan t
ttery.Honestly I would never take part in established system that has massive flaws and is incompetent of ruling over people in a fair just way. I would eventually have to compromise what I believe in and I am not prepared to do that!
Slagathore said:
joshcowin said:
Yes happily, I know I'm in the minority and that I will not make a bit of difference, but I also don't see the point in voting for something I don't believe in.
Seems a shame and a waste. One thing I've realised as I've gotten older is compromise exists everywhere.I am not criticising anyone else and don't want to come over as an arse, that's just my view. I am interested in other peoples views however, hence my involvement in the discussion.
turbobloke said:
Why fear? It would be great - Labour unlectable for even longer, then if McDonnell takes over, even longer still.
Elections are (often) lost by the government rather than won by the opposition. By that I mean that the electorate can become so disillusioned with the government that it becomes a case of "anyone but them!". We saw this with the Conservatives in the mid-90s where they become embroiled on scandal and internal infighting that contributed to Tony Blair's large majority. The fear, therefore, is that the hard-left gain power not through a positive vote for them but rather a negative vote against the government.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff