snap general election?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

I thought the Great British Public hated subsidising regions? if this gets out they will be up in arms and demand they stop receiving this undeserved wonga

Ground for a Lexit, no?

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

To be fair, London's wealth has been built on the historic manufacturing and extraction of natural resources from the rest of the country so it is only fair.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

I thought the Great British Public hated subsidising regions? if this gets out they will be up in arms and demand they stop receiving this undeserved wonga

Ground for a Lexit, no?

drawing a line from the Wash to the Severn should do the job.

Interesting to see that most are doing far worse than Greece and the bottom three are doing worse than Greece did in it deepest pit of despair

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

To be fair, London's wealth has been built on the historic manufacturing and extraction of natural resources from the rest of the country so it is only fair.

I thought the exploitation was on a global scale?

mamba80

KingstonGraham wrote:

I'm sure my parents had to sell my grandparents' house to pay the council back for residential care 15 years ago. They were in their late 50s by then, so I struggle to see it as preventing parents giving a leg up to their "kids".

Is it only new because people are living longer with more care needs?

this as you say, always been the case or at least in the last 15/20 years.

this new rule is for those who previously got council funding for free, looking after someone at home, so a partnership between the family and the state if you like.
the care provided by the council wont be full time - they ll be an assessment made, and will involve a family member giving up work and or time to chip in.

so in my mums case, we were deemed to need 4 x 45mins by 2 care workers 7 days a week, with family providing all the extra care, even that little amount of care was tendered at over a 1000 per week to the care provider, its an expensive business, private companies need to make profits.

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

To be fair, London's wealth has been built on the historic manufacturing and extraction of natural resources from the rest of the country so it is only fair.

I thought the exploitation was on a global scale?

Well of course but the areas that were most exploited in the UK are now those at the bottom of that table (other than maybe NI, I'm not sure what input they had into the industrial revolution over there). Whilst my original comment was tongue in cheek I do think there are an element in the country who genuinely take that approach that they are bailing out poorer parts of the country without considering the history.

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

To be fair, London's wealth has been built on the historic manufacturing and extraction of natural resources from the rest of the country so it is only fair.

Well of course but the areas that were most exploited in the UK are now those at the bottom of that table (other than maybe NI, I'm not sure what input they had into the industrial revolution over there). Whilst my original comment was tongue in cheek I do think there are an element in the country who genuinely take that approach that they are bailing out poorer parts of the country without considering the history.

I thought the exploitation was on a global scale?

I think you have it the wrong way round. In the referendum the people moaning about subsidies turn out to be those receiving the greatest proportion (N.Ireland aside). So as well as learning that immigrants doing like immigration we learnt that spongers don't like others sponging.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

... its an expensive business, private companies need to make profits.

And therein lies the root of all future problems.

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Official figures for the first time on regional subsidies.

Basically, London & South East subsidise the rest of the UK, unsurprisingly.

To be fair, London's wealth has been built on the historic manufacturing and extraction of natural resources from the rest of the country so it is only fair.

Well of course but the areas that were most exploited in the UK are now those at the bottom of that table (other than maybe NI, I'm not sure what input they had into the industrial revolution over there). Whilst my original comment was tongue in cheek I do think there are an element in the country who genuinely take that approach that they are bailing out poorer parts of the country without considering the history.

I thought the exploitation was on a global scale?

I think you have it the wrong way round. In the referendum the people moaning about subsidies turn out to be those receiving the greatest proportion (N.Ireland aside). So as well as learning that immigrants doing like immigration we learnt that spongers don't like others sponging.

True and I cringe when I hear AMs going on about how they are going to ensure Wales gets the best deal from Brexit. We should be at the bottom of the pile for any reallocation of funding!

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

so if the only two policies I agree with are legalising cannabis and more grammar schools - how should I vote?

bendertherobot

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

so if the only two policies I agree with are legalising cannabis and more grammar schools - how should I vote?

Like, carefully, man.

kingstongraham

Early and often, as always.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's a nice graph. Still no idea who to vote for.

veronese68

That tells me I don't like venn diagrams with straight lines. Also that it's funny how Zac 'no third runway' Goldsmith is standing for the only party that supports a third runway.

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

so if the only two policies I agree with are legalising cannabis and more grammar schools - how should I vote?

Plaid Cymru may or may not support both of those policies but I'd sling your vote thataway anyway in case they do.

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

so if the only two policies I agree with are legalising cannabis and more grammar schools - how should I vote?

Plaid Cymru may or may not support both of those policies but I'd sling your vote thataway anyway in case they do.

not sure I can sling my vote that far

kingstongraham

Veronese68 wrote:

That tells me I don't like venn diagrams with straight lines. Also that it's funny how Zac 'no third runway' Goldsmith is standing for the only party that supports a third runway.

It's written on his leaflet that a vote for him is a vote against Heathrow expansion. That takes some cojones.

rick_chasey

The Economist on the “I’ve paid in all my life” fallacy.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwo ... l-benefits

The problem with this thinking is threefold:

What people pay in individually is not related to what they get out
What people have paid as societies, in aggregate, is not enough to meet the benefits they have been promised
In effect, despite the smokescreens, these schemes operate on a “pay as you go” basis in which benefits are met out of current revenues

The final point is the crucial one. The existing structures mean that current benefits are paid for largely by current taxpayers. To the extent that part of the benefits are funded with interest on government bonds, current taxpayers are providing the revenues to meet those interest payments. Either future taxpayers will meet any shortfall or future benefits will have to be cut.

So we could rephrase the vox pop quote to say “I haven’t paid in enough all my life so would like my kids to pay more” or “Since I haven’t paid in enough all my life, I accept I won’t get as much pension as expected.”

TheBigBean

It's a ponzi scheme.

pblakeney

Ah suck it up.
I've paid for the previous generation, you're going to pay for mine, and the next will pay for yours.

kingstongraham

PBlakeney wrote:

Ah suck it up.
I've paid for the previous generation, you're going to pay for mine, and the next will pay for yours.

Demographics mess all that up don't they? Probably be ok after the next generation or so.

mamba80

Terrorist threat level raised to Critical - attack imminent! if this is a genuine risk and it better be! - then is it wise to continue with a unnecessary GE ? esp as the out come is pretty clear cut.

It wasnt needed in the first place (last july maybe) but given the already high start of alert, probably unwise to call.

rick_chasey

Wanna shut down democracy too?

:roll:

Threat levels mean sfa to joe public.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

Terrorist threat level raised to Critical - attack imminent! if this is a genuine risk and it better be! - then is it wise to continue with a unnecessary GE ? esp as the out come is pretty clear cut.

It wasnt needed in the first place (last july maybe) but given the already high start of alert, probably unwise to call.

House!

Pross

Can anyone explain why the memes my leftie friends post on social media showing Labour = good policies, Tory = bad policies are including 'removing the winter fuel allowance' as a nasty Tory policy? I thought the policy was that it will be means tested which the lefties have been pushing for all along. Also, privatising the NHS always gets put as a Tory policy as if they have actually stated it rather than it just being something their opponents like to say they will do. Seems a bit odd considering we've had a Tory Government most of my lifetime and they haven't done it yet!

I do hate memes that try to make everything very simplistic and notice that my more left leaning friends are more likely to post them!

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

Can anyone explain why the memes my leftie friends post on social media showing Labour = good policies, Tory = bad policies are including 'removing the winter fuel allowance' as a nasty Tory policy? I thought the policy was that it will be means tested which the lefties have been pushing for all along. Also, privatising the NHS always gets put as a Tory policy as if they have actually stated it rather than it just being something their opponents like to say they will do. Seems a bit odd considering we've had a Tory Government most of my lifetime and they haven't done it yet!

I do hate memes that try to make everything very simplistic and notice that my more left leaning friends are more likely to post them!

Like this one?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Terrorist threat level raised to Critical - attack imminent! if this is a genuine risk and it better be! - then is it wise to continue with a unnecessary GE ? esp as the out come is pretty clear cut.

It wasnt needed in the first place (last july maybe) but given the already high start of alert, probably unwise to call.

House!

To be fair to mamba, he has hit on the only way that Labour or the Lib Dems are going to stop an increased Tory majority - for the time being anyway

milton50

Pross wrote:

Can anyone explain why the memes my leftie friends post on social media showing Labour = good policies, Tory = bad policies are including 'removing the winter fuel allowance' as a nasty Tory policy?

Beats me as well. You would think that stopping public money going to multi millionaires would be a basic progressive policy.

I think the truthful explanation is that it dovetailed with their "Tories against pensioners" line at the time and so they just ran with it despite it being a good policy.

Although I'm not sure whether the Tories have said at what level the payments would stop? In which case they could argue that the Tories are planning to take it off people on modest incomes as well.

kingstongraham

Milton50 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Can anyone explain why the memes my leftie friends post on social media showing Labour = good policies, Tory = bad policies are including 'removing the winter fuel allowance' as a nasty Tory policy?

Beats me as well. You would think that stopping public money going to multi millionaires would be a basic progressive policy.

I think the truthful explanation is that it dovetailed with their "Tories against pensioners" line at the time and so they just ran with it despite it being a good policy.

Although I'm not sure whether the Tories have said at what level the payments would stop? In which case they could argue that the Tories are planning to take it off people on modest incomes as well.

Just watched the Andrew Neil interview with Theresa May, and she doesn't know. She's going to be "talking to people".

I have to say, she's not very impressive.