Don't vote Tory

[zahidf]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and still winning.

Why doesn't anyone want to wonder why?

Honestly if Theresa may plays a good hand this fucking badly imagine, when she's going up against the EU and her hand is almost nothing

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, mikegday said:

I'm livid over this. The conservatives have announced (from what little knowledge I have) what appears to be their most socialist policy to date. Genuinely funding social care for everyone rich/poor, by removing any wealth above £100k from a deceased persons estate. Labour attack it, purely because of politics. This should be a labour policy, instead they're going to scare TM into a u-turn.

People are so selfish, everyone wants everything, but not at any cost to them personally. Things have to change, both parties have a responsibility for educating the electorate the more we give, the more we get. 

 

7 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Agreed.  

and what does Jezza do with an open goal in front of him?

Turn around and kick the ball the other way, to help encourage tory thinking.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

But that's not what they're doing. They're only removing the wealth above £100k for those that need care, essentially penalising those that end up that situation. This is not socialism at all, but rather a swing towards the US style of paying for your own healthcare.  True socialism would be taxing everyone with wealth over this threshold, whether they need the care  or not.

it's an opportunity to open a discussion about the wrong of inherited wealth at a point where even the tories are attacking it.

Instead, Corbyn's approach is shoring-up the idea that people should be able to pass on wealth to their kids, and helping entrench that wrong.

PS: I say 'kids' - but mostly it's people aged 50+ who are already doing very well, thank you.

Edited May 22, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Honestly if Theresa may plays a good hand this fucking badly imagine, when she's going up against the EU and her hand is almost nothing

then think how bad the side must be that can't take May down.

That's no less relevant.

[mikegday]

4 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

But that's not what they're doing. They're only removing the wealth above £100k for those that need care, essentially penalising those that end up that situation. This is not socialism at all, but rather a swing towards the US style of paying for your own healthcare.  True socialism would be taxing everyone with wealth over this threshold, whether they need the care  or not.

But the money they recoup will be used to fund care for people who also need it. So it's people with an estate unlucky enough to need care, funding people without an estate unlucky enough to need care. To me it's 'micro-socialism', taking a unfortunate section of people and spreading the wealth amongst that unfortunate group. Obviously it would be better if everyone with assets, left a portion of their estate, to share the risk even greater. But no one is proposing that. So surely it's better to get behind a part solution, rather than attacking it?

[maelzoid]

7 minutes ago, mikegday said:

But the money they recoup will be used to fund care for people who also need it. So it's people with an estate unlucky enough to need care, funding people without an estate unlucky enough to need care. To me it's 'micro-socialism', taking a unfortunate section of people and spreading the wealth amongst that unfortunate group. Obviously it would be better if everyone with assets, left a portion of their estate, to share the risk even greater. But no one is proposing that. So surely it's better to get behind a part solution, rather than attacking it?

An interesting way of looking at it, but as I understand it, those with the estate are only liable for the cost of care they actually use (up until the cap) and those without an estate are funded by the general tax revenue.  My take is that we are now means-testing and then denying state funds for social care. I cannot see how this is any way a socialist policy.

 

[Quark]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's an opportunity to open a discussion about the wrong of inherited wealth at a point where even the tories are attacking it.

Instead, Corbyn's approach is shoring-up the idea that people should be able to pass on wealth to their kids, and helping entrench that wrong.

PS: I say 'kids' - but mostly it's people aged 50+ who are already doing very well, thank you.

I'm just curious Neil (and it may not be appropriate for this thread) but what should happen to assets in your opinion?  Do you differentiate between cash and assets for example?  I understand inheritance tax as a concept, but if inheritance as a whole was to be "removed" where would it all end up?

[DeanoL]

58 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

No. She didn't get elected on a promise of no election (and I hope no one ever does ).

Well the fixed-term parliament act was part of what Cameron was elected on. Unless we're saying she "wasn't elected" so doesn't have to live up to any promises the party made.

Quote

it makes no promise on 'when', meaning there is no promise to keep.

Okay, now show me where Corbyn has said that nationalisation will reduce rail fares? He hasn't. It's all stuff people are reading into it, not things that have actually been promised. You can't have it both ways, we can argue about perception of policy for both Corbyn and May, or we can argue actual policy for Corbyn and May. But you don't get to argue to public interpretation of Corbyn policy against the precise wording of May's.

Quote

that's only the case with those who are making it up for themselves - a problem that exists within the supporters of any party.

Exactly. But you're listening to things Corbyn's supports make up but those that May's do.

Quote

I think you should find other sources of info. There's no such claim.

Sorry - typo - the manifesto promise is that we *will* leave the customs union. Which I actually see as quite unlikely. At least in the next two years.

Quote

 

and you object to lower cuts in public services and slower deficit reduction because....?

And i'll point out that Jezza says he'll clear it by 2020. Care to tell me where the bigger cuts than the tories will fall to achieve that?

 

This isn't about what I do or don't believe in or object to. It's about your argument that parties are punished for breaking promises. The biggest and almost only talking point at the 2010 election was the economy. That and the bacon sandwich did for Milliband. And the Tory promises on the economy were not kept. And yet they are not being punished for it. In fact, they're still claiming they're "better" at the economy than Labour.

Your or my political views don't enter into this.

Quote

 

OMFG.  It's one thing to point out it's not been achieved, but does reality factor into your thinking, at all?

The public won't hang her for that. They'd have hung her if Cameron/her had made the cuts necessary to achieve that promise, because if you think the cuts we have had have made you scream, just think about how much much bigger cuts would have made you scream much much more.

 

Right. So imagine Corbyn gets in. Doesn't do half the things he said he would either. Because the public would hang him for raising taxes to the level that would be required to do so. How is that any different to May failing to reach her targets because the cuts would have upset the public too much?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

I'm just curious Neil (and it may not be appropriate for this thread) but what should happen to assets in your opinion?  Do you differentiate between cash and assets for example?  I understand inheritance tax as a concept, but if inheritance as a whole was to be "removed" where would it all end up?

I'm not pretending there's really a simple answer to inheritance, as if the state takes it all at death then people will change their behaviour and give it away before death, but...

As a principle, why does any kid deserve to have what their parents have accumulated? They've not created it, and while (as a parent) I totally get why a parent would want their kid to have it, their kid is no less deserving of a free lunch as anyone else in society.

(PS: again, it's rarely 'kids' and mostly 50+ people. If it was actually 'kids' i'd have less issue with it).

[Quark]

Fair enough.  I think Bill Gates (?) had the idea where his kids got a small amount but the rest of his assets are committed to the charitable foundation.

[zahidf]

Theresa May has been PM for 10 months and has U-turned on:

 

Hard Brexit, NI rise, workers on boards, snap election, her entire social care policy

[DeanoL]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and what does Jezza do with an open goal in front of him?

Turn around and kick the ball the other way, to help encourage tory thinking.

And his polling has gone up.

He'd be criticised for not attacking with the exact same "open goal" rhetoric. Like he was on Brexit. If he goes Left he's unelectable, if he goes right he's ignoring Labour principles.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not pretending there's really a simple answer to inheritance, as if the state takes it all at death then people will change their behaviour and give it away before death, but...

As a principle, why does any kid deserve to have what their parents have accumulated? They've not created it, and while (as a parent) I totally get why a parent would want their kid to have it, their kid is no less deserving of a free lunch as anyone else in society.

I agree, but I think the argument against is basically that this previous generation pretty much took all the wealth and benefits and screwed over the current "younger" generations. Inheritance is basically seen as their last shot to see any of that wealth.

Or put another way: because we're paying their pensions.

(Anecdotally the number of late 20s/early 30s folk like me I'm seeing who had basically given up on ever owning a house who are now able to get a deposit together through help from lump sum payouts from parental pension funds is a fair few).

[clarkete]

35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's an opportunity to open a discussion about the wrong of inherited wealth at a point where even the tories are attacking it.

Instead, Corbyn's approach is shoring-up the idea that people should be able to pass on wealth to their kids, and helping entrench that wrong.

PS: I say 'kids' - but mostly it's people aged 50+ who are already doing very well, thank you.

So, even though a month ago they instigated large increases to inheritance tax allowances, with much larger increases to follow in future, you now see this as a step towards what you want when in actual fact it's a move to shift the burden of care onto the individual? 

Is there anything the tories do these days that you actually disapprove of? 

[Smeble]

ill quite happily give up my assets when I die, if I don't have to pay any tax at all whilst I'm alive.

 

[Mardy]

Moving too fast for me, I'm at work today, but yeah, inherited wealth is a huge problem and source of inequality. The biggest hinderance to any kind of genuine meritocracy 

[eFestivals]

Just now, DeanoL said:

Well the fixed-term parliament act was part of what Cameron was elected on. Unless we're saying she "wasn't elected" so doesn't have to live up to any promises the party made.

the fixed term parliament act allowed May to do what May has done, so there's no angle there.

And Jezza voted for the election - rightly, IMO (see, Jezza gets credit where it's due) - because a politician who is scared of the public having their say on any and all politicians is not a politician I want to ever see elected.

Cameron introduced that act to stop the Libdems pulling the rug from under him in a coalition while not stopping the ability of elections outside of 5 years. It's serving its purpose.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

Okay, now show me where Corbyn has said that nationalisation will reduce rail fares?

I didn't say he had, I said someone made a post recently on these forums claiming that for it.

A claim that person has made on the basis of Corbyn saying he'll nationalise the railways and little more - which gives the impression that there's an easy-see benefit from it, otherwise it's not a vote seller.

I realise that take is down to the voter and not Corbyn, but my point around this is that Corbyn needs to play his part in managing the expectations - which he's not doing.

Even in your take you're presuming a suddenly-better from nationalisation, when Labour are not claiming there'll be any better from it apart from profits no longer being channelled to the operating companies.

Nationalisation merely puts them in the position where better might come - somewhen, somehow, yet to be said.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

He hasn't. It's all stuff people are reading into it, not things that have actually been promised. You can't have it both ways, we can argue about perception of policy for both Corbyn and May, or we can argue actual policy for Corbyn and May. But you don't get to argue to public interpretation of Corbyn policy against the precise wording of May's.

All guff, cos I never said your starting question.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

Exactly. But you're listening to things Corbyn's supports make up but those that May's do.

May is offering (loosely) more of the same. Corbyn is offering (loosely) everything will be wonderful.

The supporters of only one side will feel let down by non-delivery.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

Sorry - typo - the manifesto promise is that we *will* leave the customs union. Which I actually see as quite unlikely. At least in the next two years.

That's all dependent on semetics to a large degree.

May has made clear she thinks a transitional deal is likely, and the EU have hinted at it too - so whether we're in or out of that custom's union in exactly 2 year's time is likely to be a matter of personal interpretation to a large degree, much as it will be if there's a new deal which gets access to much of the same thing on much the same terms - which has always been the stated plan in 'leaving'.

There's two ways of approaching it. leave everything and then rebuild the parts we want, or only remove the bits we don't want and keep the bits we do.

When it comes down to it, May's take is more real-world than Corbyn's as far as I can see, because Corbyn is trying to suggest we can keep the same terms as now when having ditched free movement, which the EU have made clear is not a possibility.

But either way they're both moronic leavers, and that's risking Labour not getting my vote just as the tories won't.

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

It's about your argument that parties are punished for breaking promises. The biggest and almost only talking point at the 2010 election was the economy. That and the bacon sandwich did for Milliband. And the Tory promises on the economy were not kept. And yet they are not being punished for it. In fact, they're still claiming they're "better" at the economy than Labour.

And that's because the rest of the electorate are as least as smart as you are, and not the more-stupid your take there is based within. Just because the tories didn't work tightly to their claim beforehand doesn't get to mean that *all* alternatives would have worked out better.

And as far as the over-spend goes, a party that planned to not-cut and to spend more is - at the base levels, at least - going to end up in an even worse position than the tories managed.

It is not a sensible argument to condemn the tories for spending too much when the alternative plan that you backed planned to spend even more than they did.

(yes, I know about economics and I'm hoping me saying that will be good enough to avoid a long and unnecessary and pointless discussion about 'it's not a household budget')

 

Just now, DeanoL said:

Right. So imagine Corbyn gets in. Doesn't do half the things he said he would either. Because the public would hang him for raising taxes to the level that would be required to do so. How is that any different to May failing to reach her targets because the cuts would have upset the public too much?

because 'more of the same' is not big promise to break.

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Theresa May has been PM for 10 months and has U-turned on:

 

Hard Brexit, NI rise, workers on boards, snap election, her entire social care policy

Eh? when has May u-turned on hard brexit? Did you read that on twitter?

NI rise: a more socialist and fairer-to-all policy from May that Labour said was wrong.

social care policy: a more socialist policy from May that Labour says is wrong.

snap election: a chance to remove the tories that Corbynistas say is wrong cos they want the tories in power.

As for workers on boards, that's something she's still championing and still might happen (tho it might not too).

So not really a badge any self-respecting real socialist should be polishing. Words for the sparrows, those.

Edited May 22, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Smeble said:

ill quite happily give up my assets when I die, if I don't have to pay any tax at all whilst I'm alive.

 

that's very socialist of you.

 

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

And his polling has gone up.

yep, which only shows what's driving the voters.

In case that's passing you by, what's driving them is not the socialism that Jezza is (mostly, but not here) offering.

 

28 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

He'd be criticised for not attacking with the exact same "open goal" rhetoric. Like he was on Brexit. If he goes Left he's unelectable, if he goes right he's ignoring Labour principles.

No, that's only what happens if it's someone of Corbyn's limited abilities in charge.

A good politician can get away with loads - just as May is proving.

 

28 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I agree, but I think the argument against is basically that this previous generation pretty much took all the wealth and benefits and screwed over the current "younger" generations. Inheritance is basically seen as their last shot to see any of that wealth.

I suggest you try asking those whose parents don't have a valuable house for them to inherit if they feel they should pay more in taxes so that you can inherit.

(disclosure: I'd inherit).

That sort of "I'm a socialist, but me-me-me-greedy should still be rich" isn't socialist at all and is why the tories win.

[DeanoL]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That sort of "I'm a socialist, but me-me-me-greedy should still be rich" isn't socialist at all and is why the tories win.

I'd argue it's why Labour have any support left at all.

[DeanoL]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, which only shows what's driving the voters.

In case that's passing you by, what's driving them is not the socialism that Jezza is (mostly, but not here) offering.

So should Corbyn be socialist or not? I'm not sure how you can criticise him for have policies that you think are too socialist to make him electable, and then when he stops doing that for a second and makes gains in the polls, criticise him for not being socialist enough.

(And yes, those who support him for both are guilty of a similar thing, though in their case it's more just hypocrisy - as you say, they're socialists as long as it won't hurt them - than a flat out contradictory position).

[Smeble]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's very socialist of you.

 

You miss my point, my paying tax on my earnings and then multiple times again when I spend it gives me the right to do with my money as I wish, if that is give it to my children then so be it, they certainly have more right to it than anyone else. I'd rather do a KLF with it than it be taken off me by the state 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I'd argue it's why Labour have any support left at all.

- which only confirms Labour as on the wrong track for where the electoral support is, as much as i said.

[DeanoL]

51 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I didn't say he had, I said someone made a post recently on these forums claiming that for it.

A claim that person has made on the basis of Corbyn saying he'll nationalise the railways and little more - which gives the impression that there's an easy-see benefit from it, otherwise it's not a vote seller.

I realise that take is down to the voter and not Corbyn, but my point around this is that Corbyn needs to play his part in managing the expectations - which he's not doing.

Do you genuinely think May is realistically managing expectations on Brexit? Honest question. Maybe have a nose around some of the Brexiteer Facebook groups before you answer...

Quote

 

May is offering (loosely) more of the same. Corbyn is offering (loosely) everything will be wonderful.

The supporters of only one side will feel let down by non-delivery.

 

So effectively only the incumbent is ever actually held to their promises? You may be right there. Although giving that leaving the EU is the biggest social and political upheaval we will have seen in decades I'm not sure it qualifies as "more of the same" on any level. And a harder Brexit means bigger change, softer means more of the same.

Quote

When it comes down to it, May's take is more real-world than Corbyn's as far as I can see, because Corbyn is trying to suggest we can keep the same terms as now when having ditched free movement, which the EU have made clear is not a possibility.

I'm less sure of that. Ditching free movement but with quotas high enough that realistically we might as well still have it is likely viable.

Quote

 

And that's because the rest of the electorate are as least as smart as you are, and not the more-stupid your take there is based within. Just because the tories didn't work tightly to their claim beforehand doesn't get to mean that *all* alternatives would have worked out better.

And as far as the over-spend goes, a party that planned to not-cut and to spend more is - at the base levels, at least - going to end up in an even worse position than the tories managed.

It is not a sensible argument to condemn the tories for spending too much when the alternative plan that you backed planned to spend even more than they did.

 

But Labour we also going to tax more. Every tax cut that May and Cameron made could easily have been not made, and that money reduced the deficit instead. Realistically I'd imagine Labour would have taxed more and spent more and ended up in pretty much the same position. Although had Labour won in 2010 I do wonder if they would have been so concscious about clearing the deficit (knowing full-well what the general opinion of their competency on the economy was perceived as) they would have actually strived harder to achieve it. (Worth noting the Tories initially promised to be running a surplus by 2010, then it became 2013, then 2015... Osborne's last budget had it at 2019 and May is now saying 2025. Likewise the Labour 2010 manifesto also had it at 2015.) 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Smeble said:

You miss my point, my paying tax on my earnings and then multiple times again when I spend it gives me the right to do with my money as I wish, if that is give it to my children then so be it, they certainly have more right to it than anyone else. I'd rather do a KLF with it than it be taken off me by the state 

There was a no need to complain that I got your point entirely.