Not The Politics Thread.

[bovril]

17 hours ago, Lionator said:

Literally everything was better under the Labour government, the NHS, crime levels, education, housing market, suicide rates, poverty. 

And control over the border, ironically. 

[Dahnsouff]

18 hours ago, Lionator said:

Literally everything was better under the Labour government, the NHS, crime levels, education, housing market, suicide rates, poverty. 

Economically it seems fairly similar from this : https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

 

Happily it does seem that Labour are certainly more beneficial for public services.

 

As much as the Corbyn years will not define Labour, it must be hoped that Johnson's disasterous stint does not define the Conservatives, as a single party holding such sway would not be great moving forward

[Sampson]

Just now, pmcla26 said:

The really worrying thing is that I could still see the Tories getting voted back in again next time around. 

Maybe. I think the poll swing has been so big now that the best they can hope for is a hung parliament with nowhere near enough seats for the DUP or anyone to prop them up with. But it seems most likely to be a hung parliament with more Labour seats than Tory seats right now.

 

And can see current Lib Dems far more likely to do a deal with Labour than the Tories at this moment in time.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, pmcla26 said:

The really worrying thing is that I could still see the Tories getting voted back in again next time around. 

Its possible, there is way way too much partisan voting in this country.

 

Maybe one for the unpopular opinions thread, but If you vote on historical or any non contemporary reasons, then democracy really isn't for you.(Not directed at you, more a general comment!)

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Its possible, there is way way too much partisan voting in this country.

 

Maybe one for the unpopular opinions thread, but If you vote on historical or any non contemporary reasons, then democracy really isn't for you.(Not directed at you, more a general comment!)

Some folks have always put more value on the past than the future - and even sometimes the present - when making such decisions. It's something I've never been able to fathom.

[The Horse's Mouth]

33 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

The really worrying thing is that I could still see the Tories getting voted back in again next time around. 

I think it's hard to imagine any other scenario, what we're looking at it how much of the majority can be swung. Minority government is probably the best outcome we can hope for 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Privatising GP practices to cut out all the time wasters, and enable the practices to improve their employees wages, would be a good start.

The slippery slope to an American-style system.

 

Folks wanting "reform" should perhaps be careful what they wish for. Or look more closely at what it could become based on overseas.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Does anyone know farages plans? Him leading a party going into this election could be a huge benefit for labour as well 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

If you worked in one, then you'd understand why I am in favour of it. It's not a "slippery slope" when the current system doesn't work effectively nor efficiently. 

I've witnessed the system stateside and what it does to people, which why I am inherently leery of privatisation of a fundamental human need based mostly on luck in any way, shape, or form. Not without the most exacting safeguards to ensure not even one person is left destitute, or even financially struggling, because of injury or illness.

 

I don't believe the Tories would deliver those safeguards in the event of "reform".

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Fair points, but maybe rather than privatising the whole system, and leaving those who are ill with crippling debt, there could be certain services/clinics within the NHS that are monetised in order to generate extra funding and provide better care than the norm. 

The UK has BUPA and other such private organisations that already offer such provision for faster for those with the ability to pay, doesn't it?

 

Of course the search for greater efficiency is a worthy one, but the welfare of patients - both in terms of personal health and finance - must be the priority first, last, always. That's not necessarily the case with a privatised system.

[Sampson]

Kind of a little worried with all this news that the PM is likely to get a further 3 fines. I wonder what cruel, controversial policy announcements, that will cause talking points but will play with the red meat of their party will be?

Some kind of Trans rights issue - a ban on single sex toilets?

People of benefits to be paid in food vouchers and rental vouchers "so they can't waste their money on drugs, tvs and iPhone contracts"?

TV paid subscription services to be made illegal for anyone claiming any kind of benefits?

The BBC to be privitised and sold off to Murdoch to make sure it's "more balanced"?

 

 

Edited 14 April 2022 by Sampson

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Its possible, there is way way too much partisan voting in this country.

 

Maybe one for the unpopular opinions thread, but If you vote on historical or any non contemporary reasons, then democracy really isn't for you.(Not directed at you, more a general comment!)

i remember at the last general election i got absolute pelters on Facebook because I shared our Local MP's voting record (there's a website where you can see how they voted)

 

this particular MP (Andrew Brigden) had voted against gay marriages, voted against free school meals, voted to sell off our national forests, voted to reduce tax for landlords (surprise surprise) and variety of other distasteful things...  people went crazy at me saying I shouldn't make stuff up during a general election... it was LITERALLY the things he had voted for and people were up in arms at me... 

 

Not many people REALLY do any research around elections, party policies and Local MP's....  they just go "oh i'd never vote labour" etc....   

 

I genuinely believe that people should vote for whoever they want to and for whatever reasons they want.. but at least do the reading around WHAT you are voting for. 

 

i'm naturally more left leaning, so I tend to be Lib Dem or Labour... but for most of my adult life I was in a Tory Constituency that had been for 40 years.... my vote never truly counted. 

 

NW Leicestershire has been Tory for quite a while now, but it probably should be labour if you look at the local demographic.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Kind of a little worried with all this news that the PM is likely to get a further 3 fines. I wonder what cruel, controversial policy announcements, that will cause talking points but will play with the red meat of their party will be?

Some kind of Trans rights issue - a ban on single sex toilets?

People of benefits to be paid in food vouchers and rental vouchers "so they can't waste their money on drugs, tvs and iPhone contracts"?

TV paid subscription services to be made illegal for anyone claiming any kind of benefits?

The BBC to be privitised and sold off to Murdoch to make sure it's "more balanced"?

 

 

Greater subsidies for coal and oil energy companies in the name of "energy independence"?

 

You know, just to complete the "destroy the future in the name of the past" triptych.

[Lionator]

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Greater subsidies for coal and oil energy companies in the name of "energy independence"?

 

You know, just to complete the "destroy the future in the name of the past" triptych.

To be fair this is probably the one thing that Johnson won’t do given his generally liberal stance on the environment. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

i remember at the last general election i got absolute pelters on Facebook because I shared our Local MP's voting record (there's a website where you can see how they voted)

 

this particular MP (Andrew Brigden) had voted against gay marriages, voted against free school meals, voted to sell off our national forests, voted to reduce tax for landlords (surprise surprise) and variety of other distasteful things...  people went crazy at me saying I shouldn't make stuff up during a general election... it was LITERALLY the things he had voted for and people were up in arms at me... 

 

Not many people REALLY do any research around elections, party policies and Local MP's....  they just go "oh i'd never vote labour" etc....   

 

I genuinely believe that people should vote for whoever they want to and for whatever reasons they want.. but at least do the reading around WHAT you are voting for. 

 

i'm naturally more left leaning, so I tend to be Lib Dem or Labour... but for most of my adult life I was in a Tory Constituency that had been for 40 years.... my vote never truly counted. 

 

NW Leicestershire has been Tory for quite a while now, but it probably should be labour if you look at the local demographic.

The one thing that shocked me talking to family members after the last election was how many people tie in the Conservative party with British identity. I don’t know if it was particularly a Corbyn issue, but voting Conservative was seen as the patriotic thing to do. Which is obviously complete nonsense. 
 

The one thing I would really ask voters if I were labour is what has Johnson actually done to improve peoples everyday lives? Because as far as I can see, things are even worse than when he came into power. If the semantics of being out of the EU are really that important to people, then Labour have no chance anyway. And believe me the tories game plan at the next election will be ‘Labour will rejoin the EU, vote for us’ or ‘Labour think women have penises’. Empty rhetorics that actually have nothing to do with successfully running a country. I also want to see a vision from Starmer. 

Edited 14 April 2022 by Lionator

[Dahnsouff]

@Lionator interesting thought and I suspect you are correct, that there is some demographics where it is seen as “the right thing to do” to vote Conservative, and being brought up in a strongly anti-trade union (for all sorts of reasons) family which meant at the time that you voted Tory, it is easy to fill into the trap of going with the flow.

[LiberalFox]

I mean there's always been a tie-in with Labour and being seen as anti-British. Supporting the IRA, thinking we should teach kids the empire was awful, being anti-monarchy, being pro-immigration, pro-remain and being generally anti establishment.

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

@Lionator interesting thought and I suspect you are correct, that there is some demographics where it is seen as “the right thing to do” to vote Conservative, and being brought up in a strongly anti-trade union (for all sorts of reasons) family which meant at the time that you voted Tory, it is easy to fill into the trap of going with the flow.

I think the trade union issue is at the heart of it.

[LiberalFox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61112219

 

 

[lgfualol]

7 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Does anyone know farages plans? Him leading a party going into this election could be a huge benefit for labour as well 

Waiting for instructions from Putin

[HighPeakFox]

7 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I mean there's always been a tie-in with Labour and being seen as anti-British. Supporting the IRA, thinking we should teach kids the empire was awful, being anti-monarchy, being pro-immigration, pro-remain and being generally anti establishment.

Most, if not all of that, is untrue cliche.

[LiberalFox]

6 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Most, if not all of that, is untrue cliche.

Agreed, but that's what a lot of people believe.

[Lionator]

There was a bloke on 5 live yesterday, from an economic think tank so the caveat is that I don’t know his political leanings. But he suggested that their research shows each asylum seeker processed in Rwanda would cost the tax payer 800x more than if they were processed here. Absolute madness. 

[LiberalFox]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

There was a bloke on 5 live yesterday, from an economic think tank so the caveat is that I don’t know his political leanings. But he suggested that their research shows each asylum seeker processed in Rwanda would cost the tax payer 800x more than if they were processed here. Absolute madness. 

Let's be honest we aren't sending the blacks back to africa for economic reasons are we?

[BKLFox]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

There was a bloke on 5 live yesterday, from an economic think tank so the caveat is that I don’t know his political leanings. But he suggested that their research shows each asylum seeker processed in Rwanda would cost the tax payer 800x more than if they were processed here. Absolute madness. 

Did he provide a breakdown of costs, is there a UK process figure to compare what 800x more actually is, will people now be quoting the figure as fact?