Snap General Election?

[Blue Oval84]

JagLover said:

joshcowin said:

I know people with disabled children (learning difficulties) who do not need a brand new car, yes they need help with rest bite care and possibly education/ work placements but they do not need a brand new car every 3 years!

offtopic but I worked with someone a few years back who had a motoblity car as he occasional took his younger sister to the doctors.

He was lying to you then. What was actually happening was his sister qualified for DLA payments of about £200 per month, and rather than putting it in her pocket she let her brother use it to rent a cheap car, using the excuse that he used it to take her to the doctors in order that they'd put it in his name. Perhaps he even paid her back in cash each month.

No one gets free cars. Everyone gives up circa £200 worth a month of cash that they medically qualify following a lengthy assessment.

No matter how many times I repeat this on here though it doesn't seem to make a difference. Everyone knows someone who gets a free car for nowt.

Thw closest I've seen to "scams" on Motab is where some poor relative is disabled, but they let their able-bodied family hired the car and then pay them back the cash each month because it's cheaper than a regular PCP. Still no real cost to the taxpayer though as the monthly cash is paid either way.

Hey, if you're lucky enough for a close family member to become seriously disabled you could get a cheap hire car too

[Rovinghawk]

Blue Oval84 said:

no real cost to the taxpayer though as the monthly cash is paid either way.

There IS a real cost to the taxpayer as the monthly cash is paid either way.

[joshcowin]

JagLover said:

offtopic but I worked with someone a few years back who had a motoblity car as he occasional took his younger sister to the doctors.

This is common and unfortunately leads to people who genuinely need adapted vehicles not having one or having to pay thousands for one, I know this is a small issue in the grand scheme of things but it just highlights the governments inability to actually effective;y provide for those in need.

All parties would be the same, somewhere those who genuinely need assistance would miss out to those who can play the system.

[B'stard Child]

JagLover said:

joshcowin said:

I know people with disabled children (learning difficulties) who do not need a brand new car, yes they need help with rest bite care and possibly education/ work placements but they do not need a brand new car every 3 years!

offtopic but I worked with someone a few years back who had a motoblity car as he occasional took his younger sister to the doctors.

Again off topic - My neighbour's daughter gets a brand new car every 3 years because her mother is "disabled" and she "runs her around" - the only time I see her there is once a month and is not used as a taxi. Her parents live in a 4 bed house with no mortgage and the daughter is in very nice social housing as a single mum having accidentally got pregnant as a teenager and was "thrown out" and to my knowledge hasn't worked since.

They already have a people carrier and it was an easy way of funding their daughters transport at little or no cost to themselves!

It's called playing the system and there are lots of people who do it - in my opinion to the detriment of others with genuine needs

[Blue Oval84]

Rovinghawk said:

There IS a real cost to the taxpayer as the monthly cash is paid either way.

So you agree that the Motab bit is largely irrelevant? The money is being paid regardless, whether a car is hired or not. If there's a problem then it's with the medical assessments giving the allowance to people who don't deserve it.

I find it hard to get bothered about people getting Motab cars through their disabled relatives when the cost is the same whether the car is taken or the cash is taken. I'm just grateful no one I care about is sick enough to qualify for DLA, or scummy enough to fake the medical.

[footnote]

Tuna said:

footnote said:

Well, I'm not a statistician, but I don't think that means the whole 'entitled elite' concept is flawed.

You're like a dog with a bone, aren't you? People give you evidence and reasoning that suggest you may be wrong, and you snap at them and stubbornly refuse to budge. Well, if you're just going to repeat your position in the face of some interesting perspectives, I won't try to convince you otherwise.

footnote said:

I don't know who Mr Burns is.

I used to wipe bums in hospitals.

And your 'virtue signalling' is beneath contempt.

Is this how you deal with anyone with a different point of view? There was no virtue signalling going on there - your argument showed up a number of prejudices and I challenged them.

Funnily enough, the last 'rich person' I met was significantly more polite and open to different ideas than you are being.

Well, that would be because being a 'rich person' they would have been better bred than me.

[joshcowin]

Blue Oval84 said:

He was lying to you then. What was actually happening was his sister qualified for DLA payments of about £200 per month, and rather than putting it in her pocket she let her brother use it to rent a cheap car, using the excuse that he used it to take her to the doctors in order that they'd put it in his name. Perhaps he even paid her back in cash each month.

No one gets free cars. Everyone gives up circa £200 worth a month of cash that they medically qualify following a lengthy assessment.

No matter how many times I repeat this on here though it doesn't seem to make a difference. Everyone knows someone who gets a free car for nowt.

Thw closest I've seen to "scams" on Motab is where some poor relative is disabled, but they let their able-bodied family hired the car and then pay them back the cash each month because it's cheaper than a regular PCP. Still no real cost to the taxpayer though as the monthly cash is paid either way.

Hey, if you're lucky enough for a close family member to become seriously disabled you could get a cheap hire car too

As I said earlier people are entitled to this and should receive it! Your last comment is not funny by the way! I feel sorry for anyone who has a disability or cares for someone with one!

However the people I speak to brag about getting a 'free car' as has already been said in the post above these people don't need the benefit so see the car as a freebie!

[London424]

FiF said:

To be fair, re this tactic of relying on your opponent being totally unelectable, Hilary Clinton used that strategy too.

Unfortunately she didn't realise she was just as unelectable.

[W124]

Just happened to be listening to Iain Dale on LBC. He launched into Corbyn cocking up his figures but then, instead of the usual vitriol (which would have been justified in this particular case) he started to defend Corbyn - blaming those who had briefed him. Incredible. He then had a rather pleasant interview with a Labour person in which he allowed her to set out her case without interruption. Something really is up here.

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

Why fear? It would be great - Labour unlectable for even longer, then if McDonnell takes over, even longer still.

You make a massive assumption. Labour might not be unelectable. If the polls are right, they show that Corbyn, without sensible PR, is gaining ground. It appears to be happening. When the next election arrives people might well be reacting to whatever the brexit negotiations left us with. That's probable.

I think the victory by Blair in 97 gave him the biggest majority for any party in recent times, let's say since democracy started in this country, around 1918 or 1928 depending on your point of view. The tory party were unelectable. Then Hague took over and at the next GE labour lost half a dozen seats at most (one of which was mine I seem to remember). The tory party were still unelectable. If labour fail to that extent then Corbyn will go. The party will reform. It might well move to the middle ground and they get another new Blair. And we get another Blair.

If they maintain their vote, or don't lose too many, then the left are vindicated. Corbyn will go and the replacement will be more left and unsullied by the brexit fallout.

Imagine what labour could do with a decent PR company behind them. They will be able to milk the problems that brexit will give us.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The next election will, one way or another, be a watershed. Too close to call I reckon.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

Why fear? It would be great - Labour unelectable for even longer, then if McDonnell takes over, even longer still.

You make a massive assumption. Labour might not be unelectable. If the polls are right, they show that Corbyn, without sensible PR, is gaining ground.

Just as long as you're not making a massive assumption about polls. If is no escape.

Apart from that, Labour led by JC = unelectable.

[Lance Catamaran]

London424 said:

FiF said:

To be fair, re this tactic of relying on your opponent being totally unelectable, Hilary Clinton used that strategy too.

Unfortunately she didn't realise she was just as unelectable.

Most of her campaign seemed to revolve around the fact she was a woman, so not voting for her would be sexist, and only racists would vote for Trump. This is at least a bit different in that most of the hate and vitriol is only directed at those who aren't left-leaning, as has always been the way.

[turbobloke]

Reliance - who what where when? No need for why.

It's Labour's Brucie Bonus for the Tories.

[D-Angle]

Derek Smith said:

You make a massive assumption. Labour might not be unelectable. If the polls are right, they show that Corbyn, without sensible PR, is gaining ground. It appears to be happening. When the next election arrives people might well be reacting to whatever the brexit negotiations left us with. That's probable.

I think the victory by Blair in 97 gave him the biggest majority for any party in recent times, let's say since democracy started in this country, around 1918 or 1928 depending on your point of view. The tory party were unelectable. Then Hague took over and at the next GE labour lost half a dozen seats at most (one of which was mine I seem to remember). The tory party were still unelectable. If labour fail to that extent then Corbyn will go. The party will reform. It might well move to the middle ground and they get another new Blair. And we get another Blair.

If they maintain their vote, or don't lose too many, then the left are vindicated. Corbyn will go and the replacement will be more left and unsullied by the brexit fallout.

Imagine what labour could do with a decent PR company behind them. They will be able to milk the problems that brexit will give us.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The next election will, one way or another, be a watershed. Too close to call I reckon.

Could be, but I'm not so sure. I think a lot of his support will become disillusioned and lose interest when he loses an election.

The Tories moved from unelectable to Government thanks largely to Michael Howard, who turned his standing down as leader into a protracted process of looking at what the Conservative Party was for and what it needed to be in order for people to vote for them. I see no such process in Labour's near future.

[jonnyb]

D-Angle said:

Derek Smith said:

You make a massive assumption. Labour might not be unelectable. If the polls are right, they show that Corbyn, without sensible PR, is gaining ground. It appears to be happening. When the next election arrives people might well be reacting to whatever the brexit negotiations left us with. That's probable.

I think the victory by Blair in 97 gave him the biggest majority for any party in recent times, let's say since democracy started in this country, around 1918 or 1928 depending on your point of view. The tory party were unelectable. Then Hague took over and at the next GE labour lost half a dozen seats at most (one of which was mine I seem to remember). The tory party were still unelectable. If labour fail to that extent then Corbyn will go. The party will reform. It might well move to the middle ground and they get another new Blair. And we get another Blair.

If they maintain their vote, or don't lose too many, then the left are vindicated. Corbyn will go and the replacement will be more left and unsullied by the brexit fallout.

Imagine what labour could do with a decent PR company behind them. They will be able to milk the problems that brexit will give us.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The next election will, one way or another, be a watershed. Too close to call I reckon.

Could be, but I'm not so sure. I think a lot of his support will become disillusioned and lose interest when he loses an election.

The Tories moved from unelectable to Government thanks largely to Michael Howard, who turned his standing down as leader into a protracted process of looking at what the Conservative Party was for and what it needed to be in order for people to vote for them. I see no such process in Labour's near future.

It only needs someone like David Milliband or Kier Starmer and we could see a total reversal in Labours fortunes.
David Miliband would eat TM for breakfast!

[Yipper]

A huge ~65% of all bets placed in the UK today were on Labour to win.

The New Statesman and other influential media now starting to suggest Corbyn can win.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/after-trump-an...

[jonnyb]

Yipper said:

A huge ~65% of all bets placed in the UK today were on Labour to win.

The New Statesman and other influential media now starting to suggest Corbyn can win.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/after-trump-an...

Ha! Only a Momentum professional troll would come up with that one

[alfie2244]

jonnyb said:

Yipper said:

A huge ~65% of all bets placed in the UK today were on Labour to win.

The New Statesman and other influential media now starting to suggest Corbyn can win.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/after-trump-an...

Ha! Only a Momentum professional troll would come up with that one

Don't worry they are only short fixed term contracts so he'll be on the dole again soon.

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/jobs

[FiF]

alfie2244 said:

jonnyb said:

Yipper said:

A huge ~65% of all bets placed in the UK today were on Labour to win.

The New Statesman and other influential media now starting to suggest Corbyn can win.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/after-trump-an...

Ha! Only a Momentum professional troll would come up with that one

Don't worry they are only short fixed term contracts so he'll be on the dole again soon.

http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/jobs

Fixed term contract, 3 weeks from 22 May. Sooooo obvious.

[anonymous-user]

Yipper said:

A huge ~65% of all bets placed in the UK today were on Labour to win.

The New Statesman and other influential media now starting to suggest Corbyn can win.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/after-trump-an...

If you had actually taken the trouble to read the New Statesman article (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/04/can-jeremy-corbyn-win-2017-general-election-labour-polls-odds), you would have seen it said this:

"Unfortunately for Labour supporters, it is still highly unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn could be the next prime minister after the general election on 8 June."

and

"Can Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister? The verdict

Jeremy Corbyn’s path to power would be one of the greatest surprises in British politics. But unlikely doesn’t mean impossible. It would take some extraordinary events, but it could happen."

So not "impossible" but "still highly unlikely". You have to squint and read it very fast to distil "Corbyn can win" from that.