snap general election?

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Are you just following me around the forum, spoiling for a fight Matthew?

No - just debating your posts in a non aggressive way. I would do it to any posts that I felt worth debating so as would everyone else on here. I don't go, in your words, "spoiling for fights".

I just find it intriguing how someone who proudly professes to not mix with anyone outside of his self perceived social and intellectual class feels he can make statements about the electorate and how when, questioned by someone of the same social background, professional level of employment and current social class, feels aggrieved - I too have a classical public school education, red brick university degree and umpteen letters after my name. I just don't feel it categorises me (or want it to categorise me).

Members of the family are lecturers at Oxbridge and universities further afield though. Ok, my mother wasn't a teacher, but lets say they didn't do too bad.

Essentially I feel (as a Labour/Plaid voter) that the electorate are looking outside of the London intello sect to protect their interests - which is why UKIP rose to prominence - they felt aggrieved at their lot which is an utterly different lot from your gated flat in London.

If you want to make statements concerning the electorate and mock them for not being (in your eyes) as good as you and yours then you need to go and talk to them which as you've made clear in other posts you are not prepared, in any way shape or form, socially or professionally, to do.

Bit personal in the context of this thread isn't it?

Your question is about me specifically, and why me from x thinks y, rather than more broadly.

mrfpb

Rick Chasey wrote:

So you know all those tax breaks that helped significantly more poor people than there are students, all the progress on same sex marriages, the expansion of the apprenticeship programme, the government's new focus on mental health, that was what was gained for the trade.

How many seats did the Lib Dems have? Not enough to have it all their own way.

It was a Tory policy, and had everyone voted Tory instead of Lib Dem, nothing would have changed.

You're forgetting the LibDems great acheivment on pushing through the referendum on PR. Obvoiously a greater priority to them than their pledge on student fees. And you say the increase in fees was a Tory policy, but it was presented in Parliament by Vince Cable, who as business secretary should not have been presenting it, unless of course it was a show of LibDem support for the policy. (As was the LibDem whip on voting for the policy).

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Are you just following me around the forum, spoiling for a fight Matthew?

No - just debating your posts in a non aggressive way. I would do it to any posts that I felt worth debating so as would everyone else on here. I don't go, in your words, "spoiling for fights".

I just find it intriguing how someone who proudly professes to not mix with anyone outside of his self perceived social and intellectual class feels he can make statements about the electorate and how when, questioned by someone of the same social background, professional level of employment and current social class, feels aggrieved - I too have a classical public school education, red brick university degree and umpteen letters after my name. I just don't feel it categorises me (or want it to categorise me).

Members of the family are lecturers at Oxbridge and universities further afield though. Ok, my mother wasn't a teacher, but lets say they didn't do too bad.

Essentially I feel (as a Labour/Plaid voter) that the electorate are looking outside of the London intello sect to protect their interests - which is why UKIP rose to prominence - they felt aggrieved at their lot which is an utterly different lot from your gated flat in London.

If you want to make statements concerning the electorate and mock them for not being (in your eyes) as good as you and yours then you need to go and talk to them which as you've made clear in other posts you are not prepared, in any way shape or form, socially or professionally, to do.

Aside from the bit about the "London intello sect" (AKA liberal metropolitan elite?), which I think only exists in the minds of people who think that they are definitely not part of it, I would agree that no political movement is going to succeed by not listening to people that disagree with them.

rick_chasey

Yeah, the point is RJS, is he's referencing another thread, where I made a comment that guaridan readers are more likely to come into contact with mail readers in their daily lives than express or sun readers, and I then asked, rhetorically, why I, as someone who's what the express despises, (y'know, foreign, offpsring of Cambridge intellectuals, etc) would want to spend a lot of time with people who read the express.

He's got beef with that, and is now making out I don't like dealing with anyone that isn't in the same mould as me.

I made a broader point that, as a general rule, people do socialise mostly with people of a similar perspective, and, rather like drivers who almost all think they're above average, they think their social circle is more diverse than it is. And I drew on my own experience for that - in that it isn't really that diverse.

I'm now some 'head in the sand, hates the proles' type person, 'cos I was being a bit more honest about myself.

mr_goo

Just checked the list of candidates for New Forest West:

Tory
Labour
Lib Dems
Green
Pirate

UKIP clearly not standing due to the tactical stance on Brexit. Tories majority is gonna go through the roofirst down here.
Anyone else got a Pirate party candidate in their constituency?

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm now some 'head in the sand, hates the proles' type person, 'cos I was being a bit more honest about myself.

I can finally agree with something you have written.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah, the point is RJS, is he's referencing another thread, where I made a comment that guaridan readers are more likely to come into contact with mail readers in their daily lives than express or sun readers, and I then asked, rhetorically, why I, as someone who's what the express despises, (y'know, foreign, offpsring of Cambridge intellectuals, etc) would want to spend a lot of time with people who read the express.

He's got beef with that, and is now making out I don't like dealing with anyone that isn't in the same mould as me.

I made a broader point that, as a general rule, people do socialise mostly with people of a similar perspective, and, rather like drivers who almost all think they're above average, they think their social circle is more diverse than it is. And I drew on my own experience for that - in that it isn't really that diverse.

I'm now some 'head in the sand, hates the proles' type person, 'cos I was being a bit more honest about myself.

It's OK: I've a pretty good memory of who said what. I was trying to make a non-personal point (which I made before in response to one of Ben6899's posts shortly after the Brexit vote). I completely understand why on a personal level you and others wouldn't want to have anything to do with the stereotypical Express reader.

But with a party activist hat on - which you reference quite frequently - I think it is important to find out if the stereotypical Express reader actually exists (any more than the stereotypical liberal metropolitan intellectual does) and if they do, why they hold the views they do. Only then can one work out how to persuade them that one has a better idea of how to solve their problems.

rjsterry

This could equally go in the Brexit thread, but Osborne is having fun again.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme ... 41346.html

Best not to read the BTL comments.

FocusZing

...

Stevo_666

Mr Goo wrote:

Just checked the list of candidates for New Forest West:

Tory
Labour
Lib Dems
Green
Pirate

UKIP clearly not standing due to the tactical stance on Brexit. Tories majority is gonna go through the roofirst down here.
Anyone else got a Pirate party candidate in their constituency?

Yep, there's a Labour candidate standing in my Bromley and they want to nick my hard earned money. I think that makes them (wannabe) pirates.

verylonglegs

rjsterry wrote:

This could equally go in the Brexit thread, but Osborne is having fun again.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme ... 41346.html

Best not to read the BTL comments.

I was going to mention this when you talk about engaging with Express readers? Have you ever read the comments on the Express website as they are of a similar theme. It's just a load of rambling anger from shouty idiots. You aren't ever going to engage with them in any meaningful way and you definitely don't need to have lived any sort of middle class upbringing to recognise the lack of intelligence behind the posts on there. Asking me to see the point of view of someone who thinks they are superior just because they were born British is a waste of time, it doesn't stack up under any sort of rational thought to my mind and good luck with persuading them out of it.

rjsterry

verylonglegs wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This could equally go in the Brexit thread, but Osborne is having fun again.

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comme ... 41346.html

Best not to read the BTL comments.

I was going to mention this when you talk about engaging with Express readers? Have you ever read the comments on the Express website as they are of a similar theme. It's just a load of rambling anger from shouty idiots. You aren't ever going to engage with them in any meaningful way and you definitely don't need to have lived any sort of middle class upbringing to recognise the lack of intelligence behind the posts on there. Asking me to see the point of view of someone who thinks they are superior just because they were born British is a waste of time, it doesn't stack up under any sort of rational thought to my mind and good luck with persuading them out of it.

BTL comments are populated almost exclusively by shouty idiots regardless of the publication and they are pretty much the only place shouty idiots can indulge themselves without consequence.

mamba80

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Though older people should, in theory anyway, have more common sense than younger people 'cos, y'know, they're older, so have more experience of life. Not sure why that's always held against young people. Kinda is what being young is.

I don't hold it against youngsters for making lacking common sense / realism. (I really enjoyed being a young, foolish student thinking that I knew everything.) It does explain why they might support Corbyn though!

Dont see anything idealist about Social housing or removing student fee's or reinstating nursing bursaries.... at the end of the day everyone in the Tory party benefited from these policies, as did people like Stevo and yourself.

whats wrong with having a police station manned 24/7 in towns if not villages... or having a NHS that traets cancer patients withing 8 weeks or thinks waiting 4 hours with a broken leg in AE is too long.... anyone would think Labour are promising a min wage of £20/hr and a free house for all.

We can make choices, this election is about having the same shitte for the next 5 years or starting to change things, for as May would say "the many, not the few" only she doesnt believe it.

wallace_and_gromit

mamba80 wrote:

whats wrong with having a police station manned 24/7 in towns if not villages... or having a NHS that traets cancer patients withing 8 weeks or thinks waiting 4 hours with a broken leg in AE is too long....

Nothing wrong at all with that. The idealistic thing is thinking that it can all be paid for simply by taxing the rich and closing tax loopholes.

If as a country we really want decent public services then everyone will need to pay a lot more tax and consider alternative ways of funding healthcare provision.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just checked the list of candidates for New Forest West:

Tory
Labour
Lib Dems
Green
Pirate

UKIP clearly not standing due to the tactical stance on Brexit. Tories majority is gonna go through the roofirst down here.
Anyone else got a Pirate party candidate in their constituency?

Yep, there's a Labour candidate standing in my Bromley and they want to nick my hard earned money. I think that makes them (wannabe) pirates.

It's just a question of degree. The Conservatives are going off the idea of the triple lock and the increase in NIC for the self employed will probably come back from the dead. Seem to remember Osborne putting up VAT, but of course that was someone else's fault.

reallyarunner

I've never voted Tory. Always voted Labour until Iraq war. Voted lib dem in 2010 but never again - i get what Rick says about compromise but tuition fees should have been a red line. Was seriously considering tory this time on basis that all the same but TM a better leader but after seeing labour manifesto am thinking again.
Yes, it may be wishful thinking to feel that their tax changes will pay for proposals. But they may do. Yes, diane abbott is a clown. But what do labour offer? A chance to improve society. Under tories debt has risen from 60% of GDP to 80% and for what? Wholesale cuts to services, an underfunded nhs and education system and a divided society. What are the tories offering? More of the same.
Not for me, thanks.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just checked the list of candidates for New Forest West:

Tory
Labour
Lib Dems
Green
Pirate

UKIP clearly not standing due to the tactical stance on Brexit. Tories majority is gonna go through the roofirst down here.
Anyone else got a Pirate party candidate in their constituency?

Yep, there's a Labour candidate standing in my Bromley and they want to nick my hard earned money. I think that makes them (wannabe) pirates.

It's just a question of degree. The Conservatives are going off the idea of the triple lock and the increase in NIC for the self employed will probably come back from the dead. Seem to remember Osborne putting up VAT, but of course that was someone else's fault.

The tax burden under Labour would the highest in living memory if they implemented all of their misguided policies - and damage the economy in all likelihood. And on a more personal level they want to hammer me for working hard so they can F.R.O. as I said before.

VAT at least has the advantage of being a tax that you can to a degree choose how much to pay.

coopster_the_1st

Raise corporation tax to 26%

The remoaners here that think Brexit will be bad for the economy, ain't seen nothing yet if the above policy is introduced from a Labour victory.

Fortunately no one is taking Labour seriously.

I look forward to a statement from Mark Carney representing the BoE's view on what 26% corporation tax will do for the British economy.

reallyarunner

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Raise corporation tax to 26%

The remoaners here that think Brexit will be bad for the economy, ain't seen nothing yet if the above policy is introduced from a Labour victory.

Fortunately no one is taking Labour seriously.

I look forward to a statement from Mark Carney representing the BoE's view on what 26% corporation tax will do for the British economy.

Corporation tax was 30% under Blair government and 26% as recently as 2011. So, two questions:

1) why do you think it would be such a disaster for the economy if CT returned to 2011 level

2) do you believe EU referendum vote would have been leave if policies in labour manifesto had been in place rather than austerity policy of tory government?

mamba80

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

whats wrong with having a police station manned 24/7 in towns if not villages... or having a NHS that traets cancer patients withing 8 weeks or thinks waiting 4 hours with a broken leg in AE is too long....

Nothing wrong at all with that. The idealistic thing is thinking that it can all be paid for simply by taxing the rich and closing tax loopholes.

If as a country we really want decent public services then everyone will need to pay a lot more tax and consider alternative ways of funding healthcare provision.

I ve done well in the last few years, as have many many others, the tories and labour have increased employment over the last decade or so BUT many of these jobs mean the people doing them are claiming working benefits ie Housing and tax credits just to stay afloat, meaning mine and others taxes are going to subsidise companies and their shareholders/directors... is that capitalism??? sounds more like some sort of socialist experiment to me!

Taxes need to go up but its obviously not going to be those at the lower end (as they dont pay or earn much in the first place) the wealthiest have done extremely well in recent years, so now as Cameron or May would say ....broadest shoulders and all that....

i agree we need more imaginative ways of funding healthcare, the french part state part social insurance looks worth looking at?
Gov needs to get away from the ideals of the nhs, medicine has moved on, drugs and treatments plus life expectancy far exceed what was around in the 1940's but first it does need funding, in real terms it appears to have been cut.

mamba80

reallyarunner wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Raise corporation tax to 26%

The remoaners here that think Brexit will be bad for the economy, ain't seen nothing yet if the above policy is introduced from a Labour victory.

Fortunately no one is taking Labour seriously.

I look forward to a statement from Mark Carney representing the BoE's view on what 26% corporation tax will do for the British economy.

Corporation tax was 30% under Blair government and 26% as recently as 2011. So, two questions:

1) why do you think it would be such a disaster for the economy if CT returned to 2011 level

2) do you believe EU referendum vote would have been leave if policies in labour manifesto had been in place rather than austerity policy of tory government?

26% certainly would nt put the UK in some sort of super high rate, eg Germanys is 30 to 33% !!! (inc local taxes) yet seem to support a manufacturing base that we d be more than happy to have!

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/D ... -rates.pdf

CT rates arent the only thing companies consider, though whether we want to go to 26% is debatable seeing as brexit is undoubtedly going to bring nervousness amongst corporates over the next few years or so... but then who voted for that?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just checked the list of candidates for New Forest West:

Tory
Labour
Lib Dems
Green
Pirate

UKIP clearly not standing due to the tactical stance on Brexit. Tories majority is gonna go through the roofirst down here.
Anyone else got a Pirate party candidate in their constituency?

Yep, there's a Labour candidate standing in my Bromley and they want to nick my hard earned money. I think that makes them (wannabe) pirates.

It's just a question of degree. The Conservatives are going off the idea of the triple lock and the increase in NIC for the self employed will probably come back from the dead. Seem to remember Osborne putting up VAT, but of course that was someone else's fault.

The tax burden under Labour would the highest in living memory if they implemented all of their misguided policies - and damage the economy in all likelihood. And on a more personal level they want to hammer me for working hard so they can F.R.O. as I said before.

VAT at least has the advantage of being a tax that you can to a degree choose how much to pay.

So we agree it is a question of degree, then? I'm not suggesting the Labour proposals are a great idea, just that they are a bit more up front about doing so.

Everyone likes to think they work hard, otherwise "hardworking taxpayers" wouldn't be such a cliché.

Linking back to my earlier post on the immigration target, if raising tax rates for higher earners and businesses is a bad idea because it disincentives increased productivity, why is it a good idea to restrict businesses ability to hire the staff they need, purely to hit some arbitrary net immigration figure? With unemployment so low, all this will do is push up recruitment costs and limit productivity through unfilled vacancies.

rick_chasey

So May proposes to tax firms when they employ migrant workers?

Tax them even more if they don't have private healthcare?

May doing her best to make UK firms as disadvantaged as possible.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just checked the list of candidates for New Forest West:

Tory
Labour
Lib Dems
Green
Pirate

UKIP clearly not standing due to the tactical stance on Brexit. Tories majority is gonna go through the roofirst down here.
Anyone else got a Pirate party candidate in their constituency?

Yep, there's a Labour candidate standing in my Bromley and they want to nick my hard earned money. I think that makes them (wannabe) pirates.

It's just a question of degree. The Conservatives are going off the idea of the triple lock and the increase in NIC for the self employed will probably come back from the dead. Seem to remember Osborne putting up VAT, but of course that was someone else's fault.

The tax burden under Labour would the highest in living memory if they implemented all of their misguided policies - and damage the economy in all likelihood. And on a more personal level they want to hammer me for working hard so they can F.R.O. as I said before.

VAT at least has the advantage of being a tax that you can to a degree choose how much to pay.

So we agree it is a question of degree, then? I'm not suggesting the Labour proposals are a great idea, just that they are a bit more up front about doing so.

Everyone likes to think they work hard, otherwise "hardworking taxpayers" wouldn't be such a cliché.

Linking back to my earlier post on the immigration target, if raising tax rates for higher earners and businesses is a bad idea because it disincentives increased productivity, why is it a good idea to restrict businesses ability to hire the staff they need, purely to hit some arbitrary net immigration figure? With unemployment so low, all this will do is push up recruitment costs and limit productivity through unfilled vacancies.

You are guilty of thinking about the mechanism. You need to concentrate on the utopia of a highly skilled fully employed workforce.

shortfall

As I see it we are as usual being asked to choose between dreadful manifestos presented by dreadful politicians and our only option is to select which we think is the least worst. At least Corbyn has presented the electorate with a real choice this time around. The elephant in the room however is that his economic policies are absolute dog sh1t that would only have any chance of working if the economy operated in a vacuum where busines, entrepreneurs and high earners couldn't just up sticks and move to countries with more favourable tax arrangements. The infantile idea that everyone can have free everything and only the rich will be hammered to pay for it has surely been tested to destruction before?

bbrap

If any of the parties come up with a solution to make the lifestyle choice of doing nothing so unpalatable that no-one would want take that option I'd vote for them. I'm not talking about genuinely sick or incapable, I'm talking about the workshy who play the system to the cost of everyone else. The issues seem to have been discussed and then nothing is done as it is too hard and might upset people. Tackle the leeches and there might be a bit more to spend on things that need doing.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

As I see it we are as usual being asked to choose between dreadful manifestos presented by dreadful politicians and our only option is to select which we think is the least worst. At least Corbyn has presented the electorate with a real choice this time around. The elephant in the room however is that his economic policies are absolute dog sh1t that would only have any chance of working if the economy operated in a vacuum where busines, entrepreneurs and high earners couldn't just up sticks and move to countries with more favourable tax arrangements. The infantile idea that everyone can have free everything and only the rich will be hammered to pay for it has surely been tested to destruction before?

what countries are they then?

Skilled People are leaving this country to go to higher taxed Auss/NZ/Canada....

If its not ok to expect folk earning over 80k to pay a little extra tax, why is it perfectly ok to expect people like nurses/police/soldiers/healthcare workers earning approx 15 to 30k to have real terms pay cuts with max 1% pay rises, maybe they ll fcuk off to the private sector or go abroad? as i read recently, the wealthy need more money to work harder but the poorer need less.......

May is now expecting people who ve worked fcuking hard to provide for their families and struggle to buy a house are now to be expected to pay for their so called social care, when their child help to look after them at home.

Stevo might moan that Labour can fro when it comes to paying extra tax BUT should in his old age he need home care and stropteen helps too, he ll be able to pass on max 100k, hardly enough for a deposit in the SE, on top of this, he ll need to pay more of his extra heating costs too .... robbing pirates eh????

Golden op to sort out insurance based care but with no cap on care costs, what company could ever provide this?

mrfpb

Shortfall wrote:

The infantile idea that everyone can have free everything and only the rich will be hammered to pay for it has surely been tested to destruction before?

But not as recently as austerity policy.

mamba80

bbrap wrote:

If any of the parties come up with a solution to make the lifestyle choice of doing nothing so unpalatable that no-one would want take that option I'd vote for them. I'm not talking about genuinely sick or incapable, I'm talking about the workshy who play the system to the cost of everyone else. The issues seem to have been discussed and then nothing is done as it is too hard and might upset people. Tackle the leeches and there might be a bit more to spend on things that need doing.

jeez who are these people???? dole for a single person is about 78 per week, or do you think that children should be punished for the life style choice of their parents?
do you think that if benefits are cut so much that these feckless parents will forgo their fags/ booze/lottery tickets so little jonny can get a new coat..... no they wont, so in your world, they can go beg or to the poor house perhaps?
taking these kids into care will cost a fortune and given what happens to kids in care, i m not sure this is a very good idea at all.
what you need to realise is that investment in education and skills means most people can start to make real choices instead of just following their parents lifestyles.
the real issue is that despite years of pledges, work doesnt pay, i know personally of folk who take on extra hours or who go back to work only to find that they then are far worse off as they lose housing benefit etc

if you want to limit benefit claims, then vote for a party that wants to help the poor better themselves, Corbyns life long learning and education plan is a fantastic idea and one that will both help the poor and mean we ll be less reliant on foreign workers over time.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

As I see it we are as usual being asked to choose between dreadful manifestos presented by dreadful politicians and our only option is to select which we think is the least worst. At least Corbyn has presented the electorate with a real choice this time around. The elephant in the room however is that his economic policies are absolute dog sh1t that would only have any chance of working if the economy operated in a vacuum where busines, entrepreneurs and high earners couldn't just up sticks and move to countries with more favourable tax arrangements. The infantile idea that everyone can have free everything and only the rich will be hammered to pay for it has surely been tested to destruction before?

what countries are they then?

Skilled People are leaving this country to go to higher taxed Auss/NZ/Canada....

If its not ok to expect folk earning over 80k to pay a little extra tax, why is it perfectly ok to expect people like nurses/police/soldiers/healthcare workers earning approx 15 to 30k to have real terms pay cuts with max 1% pay rises, maybe they ll fcuk off to the private sector or go abroad? as i read recently, the wealthy need more money to work harder but the poorer need less.......

May is now expecting people who ve worked fcuking hard to provide for their families and struggle to buy a house are now to be expected to pay for their so called social care, when their child help to look after them at home.

Stevo might moan that Labour can fro when it comes to paying extra tax BUT should in his old age he need home care and stropteen helps too, he ll be able to pass on max 100k, hardly enough for a deposit in the SE, on top of this, he ll need to pay more of his extra heating costs too .... robbing pirates eh????

Golden op to sort out insurance based care but with no cap on care costs, what company could ever provide this?

You make the mistake of assuming I'm endorsing the Conservatives which I absolutely​ am not. However we all have to make a choice at the end of the day. The sort of economics Corbyn and MacDonnel want to inflict on us brought us the Winter of Discontent and elsewhere have seen the virtual bankruptcy of Venezuela, the country with the world's largest oil reserves.