LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I find some of those rounds on Pointless a bit scary. I'm hoping people do it deliberately.tailwindhome said:
In a round of Pointless 'Politicians eating ice cream'surrey_commuter said:
what % of people could name the leader of the Labour Party?rick_chasey said:
Nonsense. I regularly get called arrogant but that is an arrogant position to take.pblakeney said:
I think you are giving people too much credit when it comes to politics.rick_chasey said:I don't agree people voted for Trump because they were duped by his lies. People are not that stupid.
They accept headlines and TV soundbites as gospel and dig no further.
Everyone can spot a liar.
People don't mind liars if they lie for reasons they agree with.
how many people could name the leader of the Lib Dems?
Most people have nowhere near the interest that you do
at a rough guess one third don't care, one third vote for the rosette and one third care and have a reasonable amount of knowledge
91 of 100 identified Boris Johnson
80 of 100 identified David Cameron
9% of people can't name Boris Johnson when shown his picture0 -
If we take social care work - actually pretty skilled from what I saw with my grandparents and FiL - many of the providers are already running their businesses at tiny margins and can't afford to pay more without charging more. Local authorities are skint and nobody wants to sell their home to cover part of the cost. So where does the money come from? Government after government have commissioned reports and then put them on a shelf because they know it is going to be a tough sell on election day. To her credit, May at least tried to broach the subject and it was blown out of the water by her own party as well as Labour.john80 said:
You hit the nail on the head. There is no honour in doing a menial job and having nothing to show for it at the end of the week.morstar said:
So surely the following is reasonable.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
Those who can’t work should be able to get by.
Those who can work should get by and find value in working.
Whereas we have people working who can’t make ends meet and those who can’t work on a varying scale of absolute poverty to the odd instance of successfully milking a comfortable lifestyle.
The latter are used as an excuse to keep a significantly larger group of people poor.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I await your evidence that those on minimum wage jobs of which there is a lot would happily go to work for the job satisfaction as their take home pay including for expenses is pretty close to someone on the full package of unemployment benefits. I know I would not and have heard multiple stories of people shunning work as the pay is pretty similar to their current benefits package and once off it is harder to get back on it.ddraver said:
Your're one of these people who lives by calling themselves a pragmatist and then spouting complete evidence free nonsense...john80 said:
I live as a pragmatist where if there is not a difference between working and not then those at the bottom won't work. You live in an idealised world where people will knock their pans in for a couple of quid extra. If everyone upskills as per your prior argument who does all the jobs that are more worthwhile than many above that pay grade.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
If your assumption is that you have to pay benefits that keep people alive and with basic needs then the problem as I see it is that those on minimum wage are pretty close to this position and in large parts of the country in it. You either start to offer up some difference through increasing wages or decreasing benefits. I prefer the former as the latter will be drowned out by howls of despair from the left. Make work pay and get a slick benefits system so people can get on and off it without getting shafted. Its not that hard for any party of any persuasion to do now is it. The system is almost engineered to stand in the way of opportunities.
As others have said why is it we pay minimum wage to carers to take care of people with more assets than they will ever have. You might be one of those people that has a poor grasp of peoples self interest.
0 -
Have you seen how long they've been trying to get UC to work?john80 said:
I await your evidence that those on minimum wage jobs of which there is a lot would happily go to work for the job satisfaction as their take home pay including for expenses is pretty close to someone on the full package of unemployment benefits. I know I would not and have heard multiple stories of people shunning work as the pay is pretty similar to their current benefits package and once off it is harder to get back on it.ddraver said:
Your're one of these people who lives by calling themselves a pragmatist and then spouting complete evidence free nonsense...john80 said:
I live as a pragmatist where if there is not a difference between working and not then those at the bottom won't work. You live in an idealised world where people will knock their pans in for a couple of quid extra. If everyone upskills as per your prior argument who does all the jobs that are more worthwhile than many above that pay grade.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
If your assumption is that you have to pay benefits that keep people alive and with basic needs then the problem as I see it is that those on minimum wage are pretty close to this position and in large parts of the country in it. You either start to offer up some difference through increasing wages or decreasing benefits. I prefer the former as the latter will be drowned out by howls of despair from the left. Make work pay and get a slick benefits system so people can get on and off it without getting shafted. Its not that hard for any party of any persuasion to do now is it. The system is almost engineered to stand in the way of opportunities.
As others have said why is it we pay minimum wage to carers to take care of people with more assets than they will ever have. You might be one of those people that has a poor grasp of peoples self interest.
There are no votes in getting everyone to fund social care properly so it will continue to be a minimum wage job.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Plenty of own goals with UC though.rjsterry said:
Have you seen how long they've been trying to get UC to work?john80 said:
I await your evidence that those on minimum wage jobs of which there is a lot would happily go to work for the job satisfaction as their take home pay including for expenses is pretty close to someone on the full package of unemployment benefits. I know I would not and have heard multiple stories of people shunning work as the pay is pretty similar to their current benefits package and once off it is harder to get back on it.ddraver said:
Your're one of these people who lives by calling themselves a pragmatist and then spouting complete evidence free nonsense...john80 said:
I live as a pragmatist where if there is not a difference between working and not then those at the bottom won't work. You live in an idealised world where people will knock their pans in for a couple of quid extra. If everyone upskills as per your prior argument who does all the jobs that are more worthwhile than many above that pay grade.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
If your assumption is that you have to pay benefits that keep people alive and with basic needs then the problem as I see it is that those on minimum wage are pretty close to this position and in large parts of the country in it. You either start to offer up some difference through increasing wages or decreasing benefits. I prefer the former as the latter will be drowned out by howls of despair from the left. Make work pay and get a slick benefits system so people can get on and off it without getting shafted. Its not that hard for any party of any persuasion to do now is it. The system is almost engineered to stand in the way of opportunities.
As others have said why is it we pay minimum wage to carers to take care of people with more assets than they will ever have. You might be one of those people that has a poor grasp of peoples self interest.
There are no votes in getting everyone to fund social care properly so it will continue to be a minimum wage job.
I mean 6 weeks with no money (now down to 4) was always an unnecessarily punitive move.
A lot of people bouncing in and out of UC live hand to mouth on weekly pay.
We’ll give you some money in 6 weeks was just petty.
0 -
That, and the endless delays in getting the system up and running, was my point.morstar said:
Plenty of own goals with UC though.rjsterry said:
Have you seen how long they've been trying to get UC to work?john80 said:
I await your evidence that those on minimum wage jobs of which there is a lot would happily go to work for the job satisfaction as their take home pay including for expenses is pretty close to someone on the full package of unemployment benefits. I know I would not and have heard multiple stories of people shunning work as the pay is pretty similar to their current benefits package and once off it is harder to get back on it.ddraver said:
Your're one of these people who lives by calling themselves a pragmatist and then spouting complete evidence free nonsense...john80 said:
I live as a pragmatist where if there is not a difference between working and not then those at the bottom won't work. You live in an idealised world where people will knock their pans in for a couple of quid extra. If everyone upskills as per your prior argument who does all the jobs that are more worthwhile than many above that pay grade.rjsterry said:
It should pay to work ≠ those who for whatever reason can't work should be even worse off.skyblueamateur said:
Absolutely bang on. It should always pay to work as well. Being brought up in a very Labour and union supporting household it was drummed into us as kids to have a good work ethic.morstar said:
I have some sympathy for John’s point.rjsterry said:
It wasn't that long ago that I qualified for a small amount of WTC. Given we were in the depths of the recession and I was on a 4-day week, it was very welcome. Maybe your generalisations are just as sweeping as RC's and maybe the kind of person who begrudges how much their neighbours have should find something that pays better if it bothers them that much rather than blaming the government for their lack of skills.john80 said:
It is funny how so few people see that those working their nut off and leaving the house at 7 in the morning were less thankful for their family tax credits than those in charge thought they should be. Turns out they just wanted to be paid more, pay less or the same tax and have little to do with the state. They also had a real problem with their next door neighbour watching day time TV and earning 70 to 90% of their income. Of course not living anywhere near this scenario the wealthy elites can't see this as an issue. This is Labours problem.skyblueamateur said:Labour need to reassess and bang a different drum.
Things like sure-start, youth clubs, community hubs. Things that will make a tangible benefit to those on lower incomes.
Like Blair did, use the populist policies to get elected and then implement the other policies.
Rightly or wrongly banging on about issues that people see as 'PC gone mad' ( a whole other argument that has been done to death on here) just doesn't cut it on the doorstep. It does with the party members but that isn't going to win elections.
I felt Millibands key promise was ‘we won’t touch your benefits’ rather than we aspire to an economy where you shouldn’t need those benefits. I found it the antithesis of aspiration.
A bit harsh to blame wages solely on lack of upskilling. If you are performing a necessary task, shouldn’t it pay a living wage? That is not the case in many jobs. A functioning economy needs people who are happy to do unskilled work. They won’t and shouldn’t get rich doing so but nor should they need handouts.
If your assumption is that you have to pay benefits that keep people alive and with basic needs then the problem as I see it is that those on minimum wage are pretty close to this position and in large parts of the country in it. You either start to offer up some difference through increasing wages or decreasing benefits. I prefer the former as the latter will be drowned out by howls of despair from the left. Make work pay and get a slick benefits system so people can get on and off it without getting shafted. Its not that hard for any party of any persuasion to do now is it. The system is almost engineered to stand in the way of opportunities.
As others have said why is it we pay minimum wage to carers to take care of people with more assets than they will ever have. You might be one of those people that has a poor grasp of peoples self interest.
There are no votes in getting everyone to fund social care properly so it will continue to be a minimum wage job.
I mean 6 weeks with no money (now down to 4) was always an unnecessarily punitive move.
A lot of people bouncing in and out of UC live hand to mouth on weekly pay.
We’ll give you some money in 6 weeks was just petty.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Aye mate you keep hating those that point out the obvious. Having never bought the Daily Mail you should congratulate them for working a way into my mind and telling me how to think.ddraver said:You made the assertion, you provide the evidence.
All you've done is spout hate filled daily mail nonsense1 -
The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproprionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)1 -
You should wonder why they've done it so we'll then...john80 said:
Aye mate you keep hating those that point out the obvious. Having never bought the Daily Mail you should congratulate them for working a way into my mind and telling me how to think.ddraver said:You made the assertion, you provide the evidence.
All you've done is spout hate filled daily mail nonsenseWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I can't believe this but for once I am in agreement with John.shirley_basso said:The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproportionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)
Noone is saying that people on benefits are 'cheats'. The point being made is that it should always be financially advantageous to work if possible. At the minute that is not the case.
How we get to that point I don't know, but I fully agree with that principal.1 -
Raise the minimum wage, job's a goodun.skyblueamateur said:
I can't believe this but for once I am in agreement with John.shirley_basso said:The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproportionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)
Noone is saying that people on benefits are 'cheats'. The point being made is that it should always be financially advantageous to work if possible. At the minute that is not the case.
How we get to that point I don't know, but I fully agree with that principal.0 -
Wouldn't disagree. That and SC's idea about income tax all seem perfectly reasonable to me.rick_chasey said:
Raise the minimum wage, job's a goodun.skyblueamateur said:
I can't believe this but for once I am in agreement with John.shirley_basso said:The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproportionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)
Noone is saying that people on benefits are 'cheats'. The point being made is that it should always be financially advantageous to work if possible. At the minute that is not the case.
How we get to that point I don't know, but I fully agree with that principal.
Theresa May was correct about social care and everyone knows it but politics being politics it was voted down. There's no way Johnson will take a decision on this and it will be kicked down the road again.0 -
-
Yep, my wife was in a low paid part time job when we had our two and we were nearly worse off then we would have been if she packed in her job. She wanted to stay in employment though so she basically worked for two years for nothing.rick_chasey said:0 -
Yep. I also understand that once one of you goes over £100k p.a. you lose all the support at once and its not tapered.0
-
And the care sector copes with this how? Care homes are already closing because the owners can't afford to keep going, and there's no more money coming to local government to fund higher pay.rick_chasey said:
Raise the minimum wage, job's a goodun.skyblueamateur said:
I can't believe this but for once I am in agreement with John.shirley_basso said:The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproportionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)
Noone is saying that people on benefits are 'cheats'. The point being made is that it should always be financially advantageous to work if possible. At the minute that is not the case.
How we get to that point I don't know, but I fully agree with that principal.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The vast majority in care are self funders.
Only solutions are to increase the fees, educate those acting as Power of Attorney (and the wider family) to understand the ways they can fund the care, the care providers linking up with qualified advisers in care funding and ensuring that those they take in can pay the fees for the duration of the stay.
The political angle is to have joined up thinking between the NHS and the care sector, and acknowledging and promoting the fact that care has to be expensive. a the population to stop wanting things for nothing.0 -
That's a separate issue. The problem with care is not the minimum wage, is it?rjsterry said:
And the care sector copes with this how? Care homes are already closing because the owners can't afford to keep going, and there's no more money coming to local government to fund higher pay.rick_chasey said:
Raise the minimum wage, job's a goodun.skyblueamateur said:
I can't believe this but for once I am in agreement with John.shirley_basso said:The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproportionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)
Noone is saying that people on benefits are 'cheats'. The point being made is that it should always be financially advantageous to work if possible. At the minute that is not the case.
How we get to that point I don't know, but I fully agree with that principal.0 -
There's more to care than just residential homes for the elderly. My wife manages supported living schemes where a small group of service users live in normal houses with some staff to assist them as the name suggests. These are adults of all ages who don't need full time medical assistance but are unable to live fully independently. This is fully funded by the local authority and the amount they pay has been cut to the bone, as the service users often attend various schemes in the day time the funding has been cut in some cases so that there are no staff in the houses in those times which obviously creates a problem if one of the users has to stay home for some reason.
The owner of the company barely makes anything from the care provision but does OK as they own the houses that are used for the schemes and therefore have a guranteed rental income on 5 or 6 houses. If more than one or two staff are off for any reason it gets hard to cover the costs for bringing in cover. They used to pay a bit over the minimum wage but whilst that has increased over recent years the money the Council pays hasn't and so the extra over has gradually diminished and is now not much more than the minimum requirement.0 -
It's just one example of the problems you need to solve in order to be able to raise the minimum wage without just bumping a number of people out of work.rick_chasey said:
That's a separate issue. The problem with care is not the minimum wage, is it?rjsterry said:
And the care sector copes with this how? Care homes are already closing because the owners can't afford to keep going, and there's no more money coming to local government to fund higher pay.rick_chasey said:
Raise the minimum wage, job's a goodun.skyblueamateur said:
I can't believe this but for once I am in agreement with John.shirley_basso said:The statics show that benefit 'cheats' take up a minimal impact on budgetary spend.
However it fills an disproportionate part of print media and people's thoughts.
https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/social-welfare/
One for you john80 (from a cursory google)
Noone is saying that people on benefits are 'cheats'. The point being made is that it should always be financially advantageous to work if possible. At the minute that is not the case.
How we get to that point I don't know, but I fully agree with that principal.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I am in awe of the conservative party successfully positioning itself as the change party. The acceptance speech of the winning candidate in Hartlepool really made it sound like the conservative government was delivering us from the terrible situation of the previous ten years of conservative government. Should that give pause to lifelong conservatives?0
-
I think this blows the age argument out of the water. This is a strictly class issue and the working class former pit/steel/mill towns are now firmly Tory.
Now that they've lost Scotland I can't see how Labour can be elected again.1 -
If you think Labour did badly in Hartlepool, what about rick's Lib Dems - barely 300 votes!1
-
It's a great trick to be fair. 10 years of governance but rather then blame the party in charge, blame the local MP.kingstongraham said:I am in awe of the conservative party successfully positioning itself as the change party. The acceptance speech of the winning candidate in Hartlepool really made it sound like the conservative government was delivering us from the terrible situation of the previous ten years of conservative government. Should that give pause to lifelong conservatives?
0 -
I am guessing there is a lot of old people in Hartlepool0
-
surrey_commuter said:
I am guessing there is a lot of old people in Hartlepool
Brexit town, 70% leave I believe.0 -
The age related statistic you come back to Rick is being massively skewed by the metropolitan area's. The working class towns both young and old are voting Tory.rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:I am guessing there is a lot of old people in Hartlepool
Brexit town, 70% leave I believe.0 -
It's utterly bizarre. It must be the worst version of the Conservative Party in my lifetime but people are buying it. I suppose the way Theresa May was dealt with almost gave it a feel of a new Party taking charge.kingstongraham said:I am in awe of the conservative party successfully positioning itself as the change party. The acceptance speech of the winning candidate in Hartlepool really made it sound like the conservative government was delivering us from the terrible situation of the previous ten years of conservative government. Should that give pause to lifelong conservatives?
0
