Don't vote Tory

[waterfalls212434]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't disagree with any of that. I was against him because *everything* about him showed that he wouldn't get close to being elected.

That turned out to be wrong - very wrong - but it doesn't get to mean it was a bad take I had on things. Even Corbyn shared much of my own view, as he made clear in the HoC the other day, with his "unexpected results" gag.

None of that means that a comment I might make that has no mention of Corbyn is an attack on Corbyn - that's merely your own very very wrong take, and one driven by your prejudices and not evidence.

 

I have no personal issue with the guy. WTF are you so fucking thick?

I want a Labour govt - and a sustainable Labour govt based on sound and do-able policies (rather than a big fuck up that sees them out of power again for decades) - and not a personality cult.

 

The stupid is your fantasies.

 

Yep, you're driven by hate. You make that clear every time your show your hate to me, for me having a different opinion to you.

I'm driven by facts and evidence and analysis. I might get that wrong at times, but I'm still less wrong than what comes out in your hate-driven diatribes.

I dont `hate` you by the way, I dont think its possible to hate some random person on a forum.... I find you incredibly amusing, ive never known someone so `in denial` when its so obvious to everyone else what they are trying to do.....I mean as stated criticism is fine....but months and months of criticism all aimed at one guy everytime his name is mentioned..... and then you turn round and say you really have no problem with them and expect people to swallow that? bollocks!

Anyway this is going nowhere, if your going to carry on down this line I may as well bang my head against a brick wall, itd have more chance of creating any change, going to stop wasting my time on here when I could be spending time getting ready for the time of my life next week.

Have a great fest

Edited June 15, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

yeah yeah yeah you want a labour government but you spend months running down the man who was the one trying to make that happen......bollocks mate you can claim what you like you don`t go on at someone like you do corbyn if you have no personal issue with them, basic logic.

No, that's just what your cultish stupidity wrongly tells you.

There's valid criticisms to be made.

 

21 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

You go far beyond criticism into the some might say obsessive territory, as in noone can say a positive word about the guy on here without you popping up to oppose it in some way and its been that way for bloody months. 

until 6 weeks ago the man was shit on all electoral measures.

Even he didn't believe that what happened would happen. You even happily posted the video of him admitting it. 

 

21 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Oh and as for calling me thick? I was one of those trying to tell you that corbyn had the tools and the support to pull some kind of result out of the leadership election and then the general election itself.....and I was right, maybe you should fucking listen for a change eh?

But he didn't have the support. That was the bleedin' point. Even he admits he didn't know it was there - otherwise oit wouldn't have been an unexpected result for him.

Thick is denying the evidence. You know, what you did.

Right up until you started to like the evidence that you'd said was shit, because the evidence suddenly started to show things improving.

I can admit the improvement.  In your version there can't have been an improvement which means his campaigning was worthless in regard to votes

You were right for 6 weeks. You were wrong for 2 years. Get over yourself.

 

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I dont `hate` you by the way, I dont think its possible to hate some random person on a forum.... I find you incredibly amusing, ive never known someone so `in denial` when its so obvious to everyone else what they are trying to do.

What am I in denial about, and what do you think I'm trying to do?

You're the one who constantly denied the evidence, and even plenty of big Corbyn supporters read the evidence in the same way as me (this thread has many many posts which makes that clear).

Even Corbyn goes with the evidence, and admits what happened was unexpected.

What am I trying to do? get a less flawed Labour party that is able to stay in office for decades. That will never be achieved by your slavish cultishness unless Corbyn is going to turn into Stalin.

 

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

....I mean as stated criticism is fine....but months and months of criticism all aimed at one guy everytime his name is mentioned.

If morons like you weren't in constant denial, the evidence wouldn't need to be restated to you.

 

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

.... and then you turn round and say you really have no problem with them and expect people to swallow that? bollocks!

I hope that stupid people will put away their prejudices and think.

Otherwise I'm just like you. 

 

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

Anyway this is going nowhere, if your going to carry on down this line

It's not me who has. :rolleyes:

That's you that is.

 

27 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I may as well bang my head against a brick wall,

It would show greater intelligence. You should give it go.

[rubenz]

14 hours ago, jonodillieono said:

Yeah and not all c**ts are tories but all tories are c**ts

My 75 year old mother voted Tory, has done all her life, is she a c**t?

Maybe I need to get her one of those H.M.V t-shirts - #imnotac**t

 

[DeanoL]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What am I in denial about, and what do you think I'm trying to do?

You're the one who constantly denied the evidence, and even plenty of big Corbyn supporters read the evidence in the same way as me (this thread has many many posts which makes that clear).

I did exactly that. I didn't figure he had that much chance. When pushed for a prediction, I said an increased Tory majority. But I think the difference between some people here and others is the acknowledgement that we might be wrong. I didn't think Corbyn could win but given the general way politics has been going, I freely acknowledged there could be something else going on and I could easily be wrong. I probably threw out ten different, equally highly unlikely ways Corbyn could win, and you rubbished them all and said they categorically weren't possible. One of them was right.

I sort of feel like when people confidently and incorrectly predicted the 2015 election, the EUref, the US Presidential race and the 2017 election, all by relying on polling data that was either inaccurate or changed hugely in the month immediately prior to the vote, that maybe those people should have learned to be a bit less certain in their own beliefs and ability to predict what will happen.

If polls can swing as much in a month as they did in this past election, then polling data now is utterly irrelevant. Because it could swing again if/when an election is called. You've claimed the polls have turned out to be accurate: yes, some of them, but only on the day before the vote.

We could have another election called tomorrow and Corbyn could gain as much ground as he did this time around. Going to tell me that's impossible? Like you did six weeks ago?

And equally when it comes to the Corbynistas there's no guarantee it won't swing all the way back to where it was before. 

[Teddington]

I think the worrying thing about this election is the fact that people don't seem to read into the policy detail before they vote.

 

If more had done so, I doubt Corbyn would have had as many votes as he did.  His policies (even when watered down, as they were) are laughable. 

 

I'm sure it happens on the other side too.  I cannot understand how any "Conservative" could vote for the dimentia tax, cap or no cap. 

Even those who would be relatively unaffected (i.e. the "very" rich) must surely see it's agaist Conservative principles.

It is surely wrong to penalise people who have been prudent with their money and are less reliant on the state in their later years.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I did exactly that. I didn't figure he had that much chance. When pushed for a prediction, I said an increased Tory majority. But I think the difference between some people here and others is the acknowledgement that we might be wrong.

For all of the while the evidence said it wasn't wrong, I had no reason to believe it wasn't wrong.

When the evidence started to change, my views towards it started to change too.

And i'll happily admit that the yougov evidence was much more supportive of a hung outcome, but just about no one believed it. 

Not even Corbyn or McD did. There were many good reasons to think it was wrong

Tho, I'm guessing, had anyone bothered to investigate it more deeply, to look at what it was saying for trends across all constituencies (leave constituencies swinging towards the tories, and remain ones to Labour), it probably could have been much more believed. 

 

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 I didn't think Corbyn could win but given the general way politics has been going, I freely acknowledged there could be something else going on and I could easily be wrong. I probably threw out ten different, equally highly unlikely ways Corbyn could win, and you rubbished them all and said they categorically weren't possible. One of them was right.

None of them were right. He didn't win.

And of course, he was helped HUGELY by the fuck-up of a tory campaign, where the tories alienated their own voter demographics. Not a soul predicted the tories doing that, and Corbyn's gains would have been massively lesser without that.

 

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I sort of feel like when people confidently and incorrectly predicted the 2015 election, the EUref, the US Presidential race and the 2017 election, all by relying on polling data that was either inaccurate or changed hugely in the month immediately prior to the vote, that maybe those people should have learned to be a bit less certain in their own beliefs and ability to predict what will happen.

Yep, including all those like waterfalls who would like to Claim Corbyn's victory was always a certainty ... when it wasn't even a victory which means his certainty was at least as much of a crock of shit as my own.

 

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If polls can swing as much in a month as they did in this past election, then polling data now is utterly irrelevant.

Nope, that's merely your mis-understanding of what that polling data is.

That polling data is a measure of how the votes would be cast on the day that polling was done. It's not a prediction of how people will vote on election day.

 

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because it could swing again if/when an election is called. You've claimed the polls have turned out to be accurate: yes, some of them, but only on the day before the vote.

the yougov polling was ball-park right for at least a week prior to the vote - but an amount of that is down to how they're able to put out results much more quickly after polling than other pollsters.

And most of the rest of it is down to how they got down (to some extent) to constituency level when other pollsters didn't attempt to, leaving those other pollsters to make guestimates for how the levels of support would come out at constituency level ... and with such a big vote rise for the main parties (via the collapse of UKIP), and with hindsight, there was always a big chance of them being very wrong.

Polling (done nationally) is always strongly based on past trends. When the trends have changed so much (via the collapse of UKIP) that national polling was going to be dodgy in its conclusions. I didn't see anyone anywhere identify this as an issue for those polls.

With hindsight it seems inexcusable, but there you go. That's the benefit of hindsight. I still think that the sort of dart-board guestimating your take is based on is at least as dodgy; at least one is evidence based, even if they've mis-read (or made wrong assumptions) from the evidence. The other is really just an expressed hope for a preferred outcome.

 

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

We could have another election called tomorrow and Corbyn could gain as much ground as he did this time around. Going to tell me that's impossible? Like you did six weeks ago?

Not at all. If there was an election today I'm pretty sure he'd win.

Tho that doesn't necessarily mean that if an election were announced today for 6 weeks time he'd still win.

After all, he's unlikely to have the tories hand it to him on a plate the 2nd time (and I suspect there's some who only voted Labour to screw May without actually wanting Labour in power, too - tho their numbers might not be huge).

Don't forget, another election wouldn't run along the same lines, and therefore not ebverythig would happen in the same way. 

Labour still need to keep on working to ensure that when there is another election they can get the votes for victory next time.

 

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And equally when it comes to the Corbynistas there's no guarantee it won't swing all the way back to where it was before. 

Yup. Victory is never guaranteed, just as losing isn't.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, Teddington said:

I think the worrying thing about this election is the fact that people don't seem to read into the policy detail before they vote.

Yup. Labour's plans need a hard brexit, which is why that's what Corbyn and McD are making clear they'll go for ... while that's passing an awful lot of their supporters by.

[babyblade41]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yup. Labour's plans need a hard brexit, which is why that's what Corbyn and McD are making clear they'll go for ... while that's passing an awful lot of their supporters by.

This was one thing I didn't /don't understand.  I hear a lot of strong labour supporters are quite hardened remainers ( probably a fleeting understanding ) and yet Corbyn and McDonnell are quite happy to go with a hard Brexit . Can someone explain 

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Quote

 

Polling (done nationally) is always strongly based on past trends. When the trends have changed so much (via the collapse of UKIP) that national polling was going to be dodgy in its conclusions. I didn't see anyone anywhere identify this as an issue for those polls.

With hindsight it seems inexcusable, but there you go. That's the benefit of hindsight.

 

Sure - but I definitely raised the idea that maybe the polls were all missing something because the electoral mood had changed so much. I suggested the increased youth vote (which you said was rubbish - you can't rely on non-voters because they don't vote). I didn't spot the UKIP thing but then I think that benefited the Tories more than Labour. But any suggestion I made that maybe the polling could be wrong because things were chancing in society so much was met with you pissing yourself laughing and asking if I was really smarter than all the polling companies that did this for a living. 

Quote

Yup. Victory is never guaranteed, just as losing isn't.

But you never once said that when we were discussing if Corbyn could win, or even force a hung parliament. You seemed to think losing was guaranteed. 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Sure - but I definitely raised the idea that maybe the polls were all missing something because the electoral mood had changed so much. I suggested the increased youth vote (which you said was rubbish - you can't rely on non-voters because they don't vote). I didn't spot the UKIP thing but then I think that benefited the Tories more than Labour. But any suggestion I made that maybe the polling could be wrong because things were chancing in society so much was met with you pissing yourself laughing and asking if I was really smarter than all the polling companies that did this for a living. 

You named unspecified changes in society. You didn't identify what had changed (and few, if anyone at all, did).

The youth vote was increased, but not by as much as many said it would be.

An awful lot was made by Corbyn at his first leadership election about getting non-voters to vote, which was something even he gave up on. It wasn't mentioned for his 2nd leadership campaign or any time afterwards.

In the end the turnout increased by just 2% - and there's much more to suggest it was brexit that caused that little extra than it was any Corbyn campaigning (tho the effect Corbyn had on getting out a bigger youth vote can't be denied).

 

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But you never once said that when we were discussing if Corbyn could win, or even force a hung parliament. You seemed to think losing was guaranteed. 

Yep, I did - as did just about everyone else, including Corbyn. And I was right about that too, he DID lose.

I didn't see* a single prediction here or in the other thread here discussing the election of anyone saying they expected a hung parliament (and that would be a hung parliament where Jezza also lost, don't forget).

(* there might have been one here, but i'm not aware of it. Apologies if I have missed that).

So my guarantee was guaranteed, and 100% accurate. 

How the votes fell was something outside of that which I'm very happy to see I got wrong, but i'm not different with that to Corbyn's most-loyal supporters - but it's only me it's being thrown at (and where i'm happy to admit it), while everyone else who got it the same wrong for the same reasons is being free-passed, and mostly by those same wrong'uns who still can't admit that the very many criticisms of Corbyn were well-founded even tho they turned out to be wrong.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

39 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

This was one thing I didn't /don't understand.  I hear a lot of strong labour supporters are quite hardened remainers ( probably a fleeting understanding ) and yet Corbyn and McDonnell are quite happy to go with a hard Brexit . Can someone explain 

well it's not like there was much choice, was there. That's the whole damn problem with this electoral system, in terms of who was going to form a government it was either vote Tory and get an 'ultra country-f*ck of a Brexit' or vote Labour and get a 'country-ruining Brexit but one at least nominally focussed on maintaining workers rights after the event'. No 'soft Brexit' or 'reverse Brexit' parties were really in the picture, outside of Scotland.

Also Labour's ambiguity* over their Brexit standpoint helped, there's no way they could have simultaneously appealed to voters in Sunderland and Kensington otherwise. Whereas the Tory campaign - at least before it turned to shite - tried very hard to emphasise that they would give us the hardest possible Brexit. Indeed there was so little ambiguity over their stance that their stupid 'no deal is better than a bad deal' thing ended up costing them votes, at least around here.

*I'm being kind, in reality it was just a messy lack of clarity rather than strategically-genius 'planned confusion', but it had the same effect

Edited June 15, 2017 by Zac Quinn

[giantkatestacks]

1 hour ago, Teddington said:

I think the worrying thing about this election is the fact that people don't seem to read into the policy detail before they vote.

 

If more had done so, I doubt Corbyn would have had as many votes as he did.  His policies (even when watered down, as they were) are laughable. 

 

I'm sure it happens on the other side too.  I cannot understand how any "Conservative" could vote for the dimentia tax, cap or no cap. 

Even those who would be relatively unaffected (i.e. the "very" rich) must surely see it's agaist Conservative principles.

It is surely wrong to penalise people who have been prudent with their money and are less reliant on the state in their later years.

Interesting this observation as talking to my school gate Tory acquaintances in a very Tory area it was the other way around - I was getting feedback that the Labour manifesto itself was good, it was Jeremy Corbyn that was the problem. The IRA thing came up time and time again but the manifesto itself was sound. Surprising but true.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

well it's not like there was much choice, was there. That's the whole damn problem with this electoral system, in terms of who was going to form a government it was either vote Tory and get an 'ultra country-f*ck of a Brexit' or vote Labour and get a 'country-ruining Brexit but one at least nominally focussed on maintaining workers rights after the event'. 

it's about much much more than just that. It's about the classic 'leftish' not-want of the EU (think Tony Benn).

 

2 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Also Labour's ambiguity* over their Brexit standpoint helped

I agree, from a vote-catching point of view for the election just gone Labour played it perfectly (despite not being what i wanted them to do, something I have to add to stop some people making up some self-serving bullshit ).

However, they need to be careful going forwards, as i'm not sure the position they're currently taking is going to stay as the most electorally-beneficial

 

2 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Whereas the Tory campaign - at least before it turned to shite - tried very hard to emphasise that they would give us the hardest possible Brexit.

That's not actually true, that's merely a version that some people decided to hear to the exclusion of other things said, and to promote as the tory view for their own electoral advantage.

After all, it turns out that the pre-election tory position and labour's now-clear position is now as-good-as-identical.

 

2 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

Indeed there was so little ambiguity over their stance that their stupid 'no deal is better than a bad deal' thing ended up costing them votes, at least around here.

Some people have no imagination.

Or even a grasp of the easily-possible.

 

2 minutes ago, Zac Quinn said:

*I'm being kind, in reality it was just a messy lack of clarity rather than strategically-genius 'planned confusion', but it had the same effect

I'd say it was deliberately the 'planned confusion' you're dismissing.

After all, Corbyn and McD have been quick enough to clear up the confusion immediately afterwards.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, giantkatestacks said:

Interesting this observation as talking to my school gate Tory acquaintances in a very Tory area it was the other way around - I was getting feedback that the Labour manifesto itself was good, it was Jeremy Corbyn that was the problem. The IRA thing came up time and time again but the manifesto itself was sound. Surprising but true.

yep, marginal views like the IRA thing very definitely lost Labour votes that they'd have gained in a hypothetical everything-the-same-but-Corbyn scenario.

Same with nukes. Same with wider defence issues. Same with the trades union ideas. Same with Hamas. Same with Hizbollah. Same with Iran. Same with Cuba & Venezuela, etc, etc,etc.

Tho I'm quite happy to admit that it's very unlikely that everything else would have been the same without Corbyn (for example, the EU position might have been different), so i'm not claiming there's any guarantee another leader would have done better overall.

But those marginal views were always going to cost votes Labour might otherwise have had. 

[babyblade41]

I'm still none the wiser here.  I always thought that Corbyn wanted a soft Brexit... and May wanted a hard Brexit ( whatever hard and soft really are ) now it seems Corbyn has the same view on Brexit as the tories do... am I right or wrong ?

Also the hard labour voters were mostly remainers. am I getting confused as some especially here swear total allegiance to the hard left of Labour and Corbyn and yet their views are totally at odds with each other re: Brexit 

Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake !!!

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

I'm still none the wiser here.  I always thought that Corbyn wanted a soft Brexit... and May wanted a hard Brexit ( whatever hard and soft really are ) now it seems Corbyn has the same view on Brexit as the tories do... am I right or wrong ?

Also the hard labour voters were mostly remainers. am I getting confused as some especially here swear total allegiance to the hard left of Labour and Corbyn and yet their views are totally at odds with each other re: Brexit 

Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake !!!

Basically, he needs out of all EU control in order to do all of the things he'd like to do.

The EU rules on nationalisation, subsidising, deficits, etc, are at odds with the Labour manifesto.

(before someone starts, yes, i know some nationalisation can be done within EU rules, but not everything that was laid out could have been).

[DeanoL]

This was one thing I didn't /don't understand.  I hear a lot of strong labour supporters are quite hardened remainers ( probably a fleeting understanding ) and yet Corbyn and McDonnell are quite happy to go with a hard Brexit . Can someone explain 

Well firstly the Tories want a hard Brexit too and Corbyn's seems a bit softer. He wants to take a less "take it or leave it" approach to the negotiations and actually compromise more. The assumption is that means a softer Brexit. I'm less sure.

And secondly it's just about creating chaos. The Tories want to push ahead with a hard Brexit right away, the best way to derail that train is to force a change in government. Just the disruption it might cause buys time and essentially changes things around.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I agree, from a vote-catching point of view for the election just gone Labour played it perfectly (despite not being what i wanted them to do, something I have to add to stop some people making up some self-serving bullshit ).

However, they need to be careful going forwards, as i'm not sure the position they're currently taking is going to stay as the most electorally-beneficial.

I agree, they'll have to be more decisive going forward. Exit poll data suggests a majority of the Labour vote wasn't to do with their Brexit strategy at all, and it seems hard to believe that would happen again after the negotiations start leading the News at Six every day. And maybe yesterday's events - for all it was an absolute tragedy - will help in that regard: I've seen a lot of people all over my social media dragging the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg for past quotes where they suggested an eagerness to roll back building legislation after Brexit. If Labour push the Torys as 'the party who want to make things like the tower inferno even more likely in the future' that could have real cut-through.

 

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say it was deliberately the 'planned confusion' you're dismissing.

After all, Corbyn and McD have been quick enough to clear up the confusion immediately afterwards.

those two may have done but there's been plenty of senior Labour voices pushing the idea that 'the electorate rejected the idea of a hard Brexit and we're going to comply with that'

Edited June 15, 2017 by Zac Quinn

[babyblade41]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Basically, he needs out of all EU control in order to do all of the things he'd like to do.

The EU rules on nationalisation, subsidising, deficits, etc, are at odds with the Labour manifesto.

(before someone starts, yes, i know some nationalisation can be done within EU rules, but not everything that was laid out could have been).

I see thanks for the explanation 

[DeanoL]

12 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

I'm still none the wiser here.  I always thought that Corbyn wanted a soft Brexit... and May wanted a hard Brexit ( whatever hard and soft really are ) now it seems Corbyn has the same view on Brexit as the tories do... am I right or wrong ?

Also the hard labour voters were mostly remainers. am I getting confused as some especially here swear total allegiance to the hard left of Labour and Corbyn and yet their views are totally at odds with each other re: Brexit 

Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake !!!

There's two different things.

Negotiating position: aggressive or conciliatory. "Good deal or no deal" vs "let's reach a compromise that benefits us all".

Sort of Brexit: hard versus soft - do we ditch freedom of movement, ECHR, single market, customs union etc.

The aggressive position has been linked with a hard Brexit. Which sort of makes sense. "No deal" would be the hardest Brexit.

But where it falls down is the idea that who we are negotiating with want us to have the "softest" Brexit. For example, if we decided (and it won't happen) that we wanted to stay in the single market (because it's a net benefit) but dump freedom of movement, the EU would tell us to sod off. You can't have one without the other. It'd be an awful compromise for them. They wouldn't do it. But we could play hard ball and "do it or no deal" and I guess they could fold.

But as negotiations haven't started, we don't really know yet. So people read a lot into the proposed negotiating positions into the sort of Brexit they would create.

[babyblade41]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

There's two different things.

Negotiating position: aggressive or conciliatory. "Good deal or no deal" vs "let's reach a compromise that benefits us all".

Sort of Brexit: hard versus soft - do we ditch freedom of movement, ECHR, single market, customs union etc.

The aggressive position has been linked with a hard Brexit. Which sort of makes sense. "No deal" would be the hardest Brexit.

But where it falls down is the idea that who we are negotiating with want us to have the "softest" Brexit. For example, if we decided (and it won't happen) that we wanted to stay in the single market (because it's a net benefit) but dump freedom of movement, the EU would tell us to sod off. You can't have one without the other. It'd be an awful compromise for them. They wouldn't do it. But we could play hard ball and "do it or no deal" and I guess they could fold.

But as negotiations haven't started, we don't really know yet. So people read a lot into the proposed negotiating positions into the sort of Brexit they would create.

Great explanation... I'm a lot better informed now thanks 

 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

Today in 'Theresa May being a shambles' news, she's gone to visit Grenfell Tower for a photo op with the firefighters she's underpaying, but refused to meet any of the residents. So unfit to be the PM it's a disgrace.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

obviously Labour have to be very careful to what extent they're seen to be capitalising on this appalling event, but if they play it right ...

[Mattyb12]

2 hours ago, Teddington said:

I think the worrying thing about this election is the fact that people don't seem to read into the policy detail before they vote.

 

If more had done so, I doubt Corbyn would have had as many votes as he did.  His policies (even when watered down, as they were) are laughable. 

 

I'm sure it happens on the other side too.  I cannot understand how any "Conservative" could vote for the dimentia tax, cap or no cap. 

Even those who would be relatively unaffected (i.e. the "very" rich) must surely see it's agaist Conservative principles.

It is surely wrong to penalise people who have been prudent with their money and are less reliant on the state in their later years.

The 'dementia tax' is already there, but it's currently set at £23,000 rather than £100,000 of savings.