The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion

[GRALISTAIR]

Ah. You're a Liberal or Monster Raving Looney voter then!

Mr Tarquin Lin bin bin bin bin fetang fetang ole biscuit barrel?

 

[mmh]

Believe Boris?, I man who ans never told the truth in his life, got sacked from a job for lying, an adulterer, who switches sides dependant on what he things will do the best for his career not the country, sacks anyone who disagrees with him, and someone who is disliked even by his own family.

Ah, "morality." To my mind completely irrelevant when it comes to elections. I couldn't give a stuff if a politician is a serial philanderer, other than if they're found to be hypocritical over their private life. Their private life should be just that.

Likewise I don't care that Corbyn's been married three times and had his infamous affair with Abbott. I care what they say, and do that affects me.

 

[433N]

Ah, "morality." To my mind completely irrelevant when it comes to elections. I couldn't give a stuff if a politician is a serial philanderer ...

Do you mind if they bung them some public money whilst philandering ... just asking, might be relevant for this election.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Ah, "morality." To my mind completely irrelevant when it comes to elections. I couldn't give a stuff if a politician is a serial philanderer, other than if they're found to be hypocritical over their private life. Their private life should be just that.

Likewise I don't care that Corbyn's been married three times and had his infamous affair with Abbott. I care what they say, and do that affects me.

I also agree. All politicians are in my opinions slightly (others more so) hypocritical. The famous John Major - back to basics etc - and he had been banging Edwina Currie. Cecil Parkinson.
Two Jags Prescott - instead of Transport. I could go on.
Paddy Pantsdown and Jeremy Thorpe.
No political party is immune.
Deliver results that people want (sorry slightly OT- but Trump had more women than hot dinners and still got elected)

 

[DarloRich]

And long may it be so - if we all had the same views the world would be a boring place.

All i ask is a fair assessment and an appreciation that for lots of people in this country Thatcher and her policies were extremely damaging. Lets not pretend it was all sunshine and rainbows because for lots of us who were there it wasn't.

if you want to support Thatcher then do so in acknowledgement of those who were impacted adversely by what you believe in and what you believe to be fantastic.

That is all I want.

oh and you are right about Corbyn!

 

[bramling]

I also agree. All politicians are in my opinions slightly (others more so) hypocritical. The famous John Major - back to basics etc - and he had been banging Edwina Currie. Cecil Parkinson.
Two Jags Prescott - instead of Transport. I could go on.
Paddy Pantsdown and Jeremy Thorpe.
No political party is immune.
Deliver results that people want (sorry slightly OT- but Trump had more women than hot dinners and still got elected)

If anything Major's popularity went *up* after the Currie affair became public knowledge, as hitherto he'd been regarded as rather boring.

However, extra-marital affairs are one thing, but something like Two Jags is rather more toxic when motorway widening schemes are being cancelled, for example.

 

[Kite159]

Equally some of Corbyn's policies are quite attractive, especially the commitment to a Brexit referendum

No doubt that commitment will quietly get dropped if Steptoe gets into power and brings a fantastic* new deal. Wouldn't be the first time a party has dropped pre election promises.

(* To a lifelong leaver).

I wouldn't trust labour, the party which went over the top with poorly written PFI deals for the NHS. £150 call out charge for someone in maintenance to look into it.

 

[telstarbox]

Labour have of course moved away from PFI and acknowledged the problems it caused.

 

[dgl]

I wouldn't trust labour, the party which went over the top with poorly written PFI deals for the NHS. £150 call out charge for someone in maintenance to look into it.

Which would probably the cost just to see a doctor if BoJo and the likes had their way, yes Labour did some things that didn't work out but it's a bit different to the years under conservative/coalition power where nothing has gone right.
Would rather have a few misguided PFI deals than "Hi Trump it's BoJo, got you what you really wanted for your birthday, the NHS"

 

[Bevan Price]

Well - almost any result is feasible, but I fear the mostly likely outcome is 5 years with batty Boris as PM.
1. Militant Mark 2 (a.k.a. Momenum) is probably the tories best vote recruiting agent; past experience is that far left policies will never get enough votes to put Labour in power. Indeed some who might otherwise vote Labour probably vote for other parties (or abstain) rather than vote for the far left.
It needs a moderate left of centre party (e.g. Mr Blair) to win elections. I suspect that some on the far left would prefer permanent opposition rather than have a Blair lookalike as PM.

2. A lot of people will believe the pro-tory garbage spouted by much of the newspaper industry. They will forget the tory lies about claiming to reduce tax and the vital need for austerity. (How much has VAT been reduced since 2010 ?).
How often do people believe that local councils are responsible for poor social care - when the tories have deprived them of enough funds to provide such care?
How many libraries / public open spaces, etc. have been closed or sold due to lack of central government funding ?

3. Rather a lot may vote for Nigel's Brexit crowd - forgetting to ask how he will get a trade deal with EU - or solve the Irish border trade problems.

4. The LibDems may gain seats - but nowhere near enough to give them any power.

5. The SNP "bubble" has not yet collapsed - they may even gain a few seats. But I think they need to realise that they will not be allowed to hold frequent referendums until they get the result they want - and they also need to recognise the financial chaos that would arise if they did exit from UK, with the inevitable tariff barriers, border posts, etc. that would be created between Scotland & England. And if an independent Scotland tried to join EU, it would not get an easy, cushy deal; it would have to adopt the Euro currency and all existing EU rules.

 

[Kite159]

They will forget the tory lies about claiming to reduce tax and the vital need for austerity.

Personal Allowance in 2010 was £6475 (increased from £4045 in 1997. Current Personal Allowance is £12,500.

So for those lower earners they now get to keep a lot more of their income than they did previously.

 

[DerekC]

Personal Allowance in 2010 was £6475 (increased from £4045 in 1997. Current Personal Allowance is £12,500.

So for those lower earners they now get to keep a lot more of their income than they did previously.

Yes - a Coalition policy from the Lib Dems.

 

[433N]

Personal Allowance in 2010 was £6475 (increased from £4045 in 1997. Current Personal Allowance is £12,500.

So for those lower earners they now get to keep a lot more of their income than they did previously.

Oh, this reminds me that low taxes (and the commensurate poor health service, social care, education, public transport ... need I go on) are amazeballs.

The Tories have lowered taxes for low earners and lowered taxes for high earners ... and I think they've done away with taxes altogether for corps (How much do Google , Amazon etc pay ? ). Hate to wet the fireworks but where does the money for a health service come from ?

 

[Kite159]

Yes - a Coalition policy from the Lib Dems.

So if it was a coalition policy then why has it still risen by an average of £500 a year since 2015?

Makes the average rises (~£200) under labour seem tight, especially when they had to introduce a higher allowance due to ditching the 10% rate without realising that some lower paid workers would be paying more tax (20% instead of 10%).

Of course labour would prefer everybody to be on benefits so they can be more controlling and supportive of the workshy who apply for jobs for the sake of a tick in the box, and either can't be bothered showing up without a message or show up and act like it is a bother for themselves with clothes (designer ripped jeans don't make the best of look) & a poor attitude.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course labour would prefer everybody to be on benefits so they can be more controlling and supportive of the workshy who apply for jobs for the sake of a tick in the box, and either can't be bothered showing up without a message or show up and act like it is a bother for themselves with clothes (designer ripped jeans don't make the best of look) & a poor attitude.

Oh don't be so silly! As a Labour Party member - so, someone who does have some inside knowledge on this - I can tell you with a lot of confidence that most people in the Labour Party simply want people to be able to have a decent standard of living, and to be able to buy things like food and pay for electricity bills and water bills and have somewhere decent to live. I don't think anyone has yet devised a way to enable that without it involving some people receiving benefits.

 

[SteveP29]

Ah, "morality." To my mind completely irrelevant when it comes to elections. I couldn't give a stuff if a politician is a serial philanderer, other than if they're found to be hypocritical over their private life. Their private life should be just that.

Likewise I don't care that Corbyn's been married three times and had his infamous affair with Abbott. I care what they say, and do that affects me.

So since Johnson has carved a life out of lying, I take it you'll note be voting for his party then?

 

[NoMorePacers]

Oh don't be so silly! As a Labour Party member - so, someone who does have some inside knowledge on this - I can tell you with a lot of confidence that most people in the Labour Party simply want people to be able to have a decent standard of living, and to be able to buy things like food and pay for electricity bills and water bills and have somewhere decent to live. I don't think anyone has yet devised a way to enable that without it involving some people receiving benefits.

Perhaps he would like a return to the good old days of the medieval feudal system instead.

 

[DarloRich]

Of course labour would prefer everybody to be on benefits so they can be more controlling and supportive of the workshy who apply for jobs for the sake of a tick in the box, and either can't be bothered showing up without a message or show up and act like it is a bother for themselves with clothes (designer ripped jeans don't make the best of look) & a poor attitude.

this is a silly statement.

 

[Kite159]

Perhaps he would like a return to the good old days of the medieval feudal system instead.

Or a return to the system where benefits are meant to be a safety net rather than a way of life for some.

So @DarloRich thinks it is not silly that some people apply for jobs, get offered interviews but can't be bothered turning up on the day of the interview, in some cases not even making contact to say they won't make it. Solely so they can say to the Job Centre that they are searching for work... Or those who tip up with a "can't be bothered" attitude, wasting their time and the time of the people who are trying to interview candidates for jobs.

Labour, politics of envy, how dare someone earn more than me. How dare someone work hard at school/university & work up the ladder to get a well paying job paying their fair share of taxes, we will tax them more and more so there is no encouragement to better yourself as it will mean Uncle Steptoe will take away your extra wages to give to some lazy youngsters who are workshy.

 

[DarloRich]

Or a return to the system where benefits are meant to be a safety net rather than a way of life for some.

So @DarloRich thinks it is not silly that some people apply for jobs, get offered interviews but can't be bothered turning up on the day of the interview, in some cases not even making contact to say they won't make it. Solely so they can say to the Job Centre that they are searching for work... Or those who tip up with a "can't be bothered" attitude, wasting their time and the time of the people who are trying to interview candidates for jobs.

Have you ever claimed benefits? Job Seekers allowance? Housing benefit? Ever signed on? Ever had to decide between heat, light tor food? I have. Want to compare stories or do you just want to regurgitate the type of nonsense beloved of crackpot Daily Mail readers. That is what is silly.

Labour, politics of envy, how dare someone earn more than me. How dare someone work hard at school/university & work up the ladder to get a well paying job paying their fair share of taxes, we will tax them more and more so there is no encouragement to better yourself as it will mean Uncle Steptoe will take away your extra wages to give to some lazy youngsters who are workshy.

I notice you have then "doubled down" on the silliness. Good effort. Is there some Daily Mail/Tory secret communication system that beams this stuff directly into susceptible brains?

 

[Journeyman]

Have you ever claimed benefits? Job Seekers allowance? Housing benefit? Ever signed on? Ever had to decide between heat, light tor food? I have. Want to compare stories or do you just want to regurgitate the type of nonsense beloved of crackpot Daily Mail readers. That is what is silly.

I notice you have then "doubled down" on the silliness. Good effort. Is there some Daily Mail/Tory secret communication system that beams this stuff directly into susceptible brains?

The number of feckless, idle wasters of the type beloved of Daily Mail benefit scrounger headlines is absolutely tiny and in most areas can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Benefit fraud costs the country an extremely small amount of money compared to tax evasion.

I wonder how long it will be before someone mentions poor people having flat-screen tellies? That still seems to crop up regularly, despite the fact that they're now extremely cheap, and CRTs haven't been made for years.

 

[Bayum]

The number of feckless, idle wasters of the type beloved of Daily Mail benefit scrounger headlines is absolutely tiny and in most areas can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Benefit fraud costs the country an extremely small amount of money compared to tax evasion.

I wonder how long it will be before someone mentions poor people having flat-screen tellies? That still seems to crop up regularly, despite the fact that they're now extremely cheap, and CRTs haven't been made for years.

But people see benefits as an easy area to target. When the pie charts detailing where people's tax was being used in their pay slips, everyone was aghast at the proportion of it that was spent on benefits. The Condems never did explain that a large proportion of that third was on pension and other non working benefits.

 

[Grimsby town]

Labour, politics of envy, how dare someone earn more than me. How dare someone work hard at school/university & work up the ladder to get a well paying job paying their fair share of taxes, we will tax them more and more so there is no encouragement to better yourself as it will mean Uncle Steptoe will take away your extra wages to give to some lazy youngsters who are workshy.

What a load of rubbish. I'm exactly the kind of person you describe. I'm educated up to masters level and have fairly decent job all for which I worked hard for. When I was at uni I lived with people from very wealthy backgrounds who did nothing all year and then paid for people to tutor them at the end of the year or even got their parents to write an easy for them. They got the same degree as me and now work in higher paid jobs due to their parents contacts. I on the other hand am losing £50 a month of my wage to covering the 6% interest payments on one of my student loans.

Another example is my mum who is incredibly hard working. She decided to do a degree while running a house as a single parent and looking after a very young child and being the sole breadwinner. She got a 2.2 in a degree and nowhere will give her a job in the field unless she undertakes unpaid work experience.

The odds are stacked in favour of the wealthy in this country meaning they are allowed to make continuous mistakes and still prosper. On the other hand many people from poorer backgrounds work very hard but do not have the means to seek higher paying employment due to the inability to compete against wealthy individuals who can afford unpaid internships. I consider myself very lucky to have got where I am despite my hardwork and that shouldn't be the case.

 

[Struner]

I think you are quite right there @Grimsby town

 

[Butts]

Oh don't be so silly! As a Labour Party member - so, someone who does have some inside knowledge on this - I can tell you with a lot of confidence that most people in the Labour Party simply want people to be able to have a decent standard of living, and to be able to buy things like food and pay for electricity bills and water bills and have somewhere decent to live. I don't think anyone has yet devised a way to enable that without it involving some people receiving benefits.

I would venture to suggest the above desires would be replicated within The Conservative Party and indeed any of the mainstream British Political Parties. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

On a personal level I am looking forward to the Election, primarily because the result is not a foregone conclusion. The Thatcher and Blair years equated to a boring nights viewing, with the exception of the initial wins in 79 and 97.

I acknowledge that my party - Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party are likely to suffer a reverse, but that won't stop me enjoying the night.

I am looking forward to Islington North - Conservative Gain

 

[edwin_m]

I would venture to suggest the above desires [to be able to have a decent standard of living etc] would be replicated within The Conservative Party and indeed any of the mainstream British Political Parties. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

I used to think that but now I'm not so sure. There is so little reason to believe Brexit is good for the UK that I can't help concluding that those who support it are either highly deluded or motivated by malice.

 

[SteveP29]

The number of feckless, idle wasters of the type beloved of Daily Mail benefit scrounger headlines is absolutely tiny and in most areas can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Benefit fraud costs the country an extremely small amount of money compared to tax evasion.

I think avoidance is a larger problem than evasion.

I wonder how long it will be before someone mentions poor people having flat-screen tellies? That still seems to crop up regularly, despite the fact that they're now extremely cheap, and CRTs haven't been made for years.

The list will then continue to 'the latest smartphone' Sky TV, new car, holiday in Spain etc

 

[Howardh]

I think avoidance is a larger problem than evasion.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, I do that myself by investing a large sum into an ISA where the interest isn't taxed. Why should that be hit?

 

[kermit]

Having just watched Farage and Widdecombe at the Brexit Party launch, I am greatly cheered. As a remainer, their evident commitment to split the leave vote has given me a glimmer of hope!

 

[DarloRich]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, I do that myself by investing a large sum into an ISA where the interest isn't taxed. Why should that be hit?

he clearly means tax evasion, as you well know.