Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[hallamblue]

That's kind of it though isn't it? Assuming that the state has to live within its means then it can't keep spending way more than it raises. To a large extent, politics has determined which areas have seen funding squeezed, as some departments are sacred cows, hence why the NHS has largely been untouched, or why the heavily voting pensioners haven't been touched via the state retirement age, a means testing of the various bungs they get or a questioning of the triple lock. When such a big department doesn't 'contribute', then it means cuts elsewhere have to be even bigger and it moves less away from budgeting on merits and more on political expedience.

Yes I think we are at a crossroads. I just wish the politicians would be honest. We either need to pay more tax to fund services properly, or we move to a more privatised healthcare system. The trouble is, as soon as a politician says this, like the Tories with the so-called " dementia tax', they immediately panic and backtrack, which helps nobody.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes I think we are at a crossroads. I just wish the politicians would be honest. We either need to pay more tax to fund services properly, or we move to a more privatised healthcare system. The trouble is, as soon as a politician says this, like the Tories with the so-called " dementia tax', they immediately panic and backtrack, which helps nobody.

That's kind of what I mean by political opportunism, as the terribly moniker'd social care tax was progressive in the sense that it pinged the wealthier and was therefore means tested. You'd think Labour would be all over as they like raising taxes from the wealthy, yet they went all in to criticize it (and indeed other taxes on the wealthier such as the removal of the triple lock and means testing of various OAP benefits), whilst at the same time bunging money at the middle classes via tuition fees. It seems Labour are happy to 'soak the rich', just so long as there appears to be no direct association between the tax raised and the service delivered, because then it seems too much like a transactional, market like arrangement. Hence we get the wealthy paying for tuition fees, but not directly wealthy ex-students, or the wealthy paying for social care, just not wealthy users of social care.

There must be a logic in there somewhere I suppose.

 

[hallamblue]

That's kind of what I mean by political opportunism, as the terribly moniker'd social care tax was progressive in the sense that it pinged the wealthier and was therefore means tested. You'd think Labour would be all over as they like raising taxes from the wealthy, yet they went all in to criticize it (and indeed other taxes on the wealthier such as the removal of the triple lock and means testing of various OAP benefits), whilst at the same time bunging money at the middle classes via tuition fees. It seems Labour are happy to 'soak the rich', just so long as there appears to be no direct association between the tax raised and the service delivered, because then it seems too much like a transactional, market like arrangement. Hence we get the wealthy paying for tuition fees, but not directly wealthy ex-students, or the wealthy paying for social care, just not wealthy users of social care.

There must be a logic in there somewhere I suppose.

There is logic, but again, only half a story. Labour believe in free healthcare and social care, but won't admit that means a rise in income tax for everyone. The Tories believe in individuals paying for healthcare and social care where possible, but won't admit it.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There is logic, but again, only half a story. Labour believe in free healthcare and social care, but won't admit that means a rise in income tax for everyone. The Tories believe in individuals paying for healthcare and social care where possible, but won't admit it.

Even then though, it's well known that the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxation, so life is already heavily means tested. It raises the accusation against Labour supporters that they just want a load of free stuff paid for by someone else, especially when they oppose linking the taxes we pay to the services we consume, even if it's only the wealthy that pay it.

 

[hallamblue]

Even then though, it's well known that the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxation, so life is already heavily means tested. It raises the accusation against Labour supporters that they just want a load of free stuff paid for by someone else, especially when they oppose linking the taxes we pay to the services we consume, even if it's only the wealthy that pay it.

As I say they don't believe in linking taxes to consumption, that's more of a Tory policy.

 

[hullefc]

The Tories as usual playing footloose with Parliamentary rules and regulations when it suits them. This time a Queen's speech that lasts for 2 years instead of the usual 1 for political convenience, that is so they will not face a vote next year. They abandoned their own fixed parliaments rules, and held an election before the 5 years, for their own political advantage. This backfired badly on them and hence their desperation to cling to power with a 2 year Queens speech. The Tories will do anything to keep their grubby hands on the reigns of power for their own ends.

 

[Brennan]

The Tories as usual playing footloose with Parliamentary rules and regulations when it suits them. This time a Queen's speech that lasts for 2 years instead of the usual 1 for political convenience, that is so they will not face a vote next year. They abandoned their own fixed parliaments rules, and held an election before the 5 years, for their own political advantage. This backfired badly on them and hence their desperation to cling to power with a 2 year Queens speech. The Tories will do anything to keep their grubby hands on the reigns of power for their own ends.

To be fair they didn't abandon the fixed term rule. When the rule was introduced they had as part of that an option to hold one earlier as long as parliament agreed, and they did almost unanimously in this case.

 

[Clint Planet]

Even then though, it's well known that the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxation, so life is already heavily means tested. It raises the accusation against Labour supporters that they just want a load of free stuff paid for by someone else, especially when they oppose linking the taxes we pay to the services we consume, even if it's only the wealthy that pay it.

You've got a strange way of looking at this world.

 

[hullefc]

To be fair they didn't abandon the fixed term rule. When the rule was introduced they had as part of that an option to hold one earlier as long as parliament agreed, and they did almost unanimously in this case.

They put that in because they knew the arithmetic was in their favour with the coalition. May put it to parliament this time because she knew the numbers would be in favour of dissolving this parliament. She wanted a bigger mandate which backfired on her. The Labour party should put it to a parliamentary vote on dissolving this parliament as soon as possible, if the Queens speech doesn't contain measures that will build council houses, reverse the cuts to councils and education, more money for the NHS and an increase in corporation tax. Along with a transaction tax on shares.

 

[Brennan]

They put that in because they knew the arithmetic was in their favour with the coalition. May put it to parliament this time because she knew the numbers would be in favour of dissolving this parliament. She wanted a bigger mandate which backfired on her. The Labour party should put it to a parliamentary vote on dissolving this parliament as soon as possible, if the Queens speech doesn't contain measures that will build council houses, reverse the cuts to councils and education, more money for the NHS and an increase in corporation tax. Along with a transaction tax on shares.

But they don't have the seats to win such a vote ?

 

[Kenshin]

Watching a sky news interview with Gregg hands from today and he says they don't know if sprinklers would have helped in this situation.

What the actual hell?

What really gets me is not a Labour vs Tory mindset here, it's the fact that the government are self interested criminals who condemn hundreds and thousands to death, to poverty, aim to remove access to health care all to line their own pockets.

And the worst thing is nobody with any power will say a word about it. Your typical man on rhe streets opinion means nothing on a YouTube video but how about people with real power or real sway actually question it.

When an unelected prime minister (twice) can't even go and see the people affected by a horrible disaster yet the queen, the opposition leader as well can do it, I'm sorry but that woman should be nowhere near politics or this country's interests because she and her bunch of criminals have no interest in anything but money

 

[Walken]

Bruce showing his true colours here

 

[orchard]

Bruce showing his true colours here

I don't think he's hidden them tbf, and he's fairly consistent (with his own immediate interest).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't think he's hidden them tbf, and he's fairly consistent (with his own immediate interest).

I'd love to know what my immediate interest is?

 

[neil999]

@Bruce Wayne thoughts on vince cable as lib dem leader?