Current Affairs The General Election

[orly]

Tom Walker pretty much nails how I'm seeing things as usual

Agree with a lot of that. The campaign this time round is a disaster. The Tories should be heading for a '97 size defeat, but chance after chance is getting dropped.

Absolutely mad that a hung parliament is being seen as a degree of success.

 

[cooperman]

Agree with a lot of that. The campaign this time round is a disaster. The Tories should be heading for a '97 size defeat, but chance after chance is getting dropped.

Absolutely mad that a hung parliament is being seen as a degree of success.

The SNP have changed the political landscape since 97. In 97 labour won a load of Scottish seats.

 

[Seanjd]

Tom Walker pretty much nails how I'm seeing things as usual

Usually agree with him, but not on this one. I think the BT policy is a good one and would do more for lower earners and families than wiping student loans. Although I completely agree with legalisation of marijuana (and would take it much further than that), it wouldn’t be ‘election won’. Labour need to prove to people that they’re a serious force.

 

[Tubey]

Agree with a lot of that. The campaign this time round is a disaster. The Tories should be heading for a '97 size defeat, but chance after chance is getting dropped.

Absolutely mad that a hung parliament is being seen as a degree of success.

It's because Momentum Labour care far more about ideology than pragmatism. They are more happy being a party of protest.

Its depressing.

 

[tsubaki]

The SNP have changed the political landscape since 97. In 97 labour won a load of Scottish seats.

They did in 2001, 2005 and even in 2010 they got 41 seats (the SNP had six).

However years of neglect, combined with the leadership talents of one Jim Murphy, resulted in the biggest electoral disaster there has been in recent British political history in 2015 and it will take them years to recover from it.

 

[Tubey]

Usually agree with him, but not on this one. I think the BT policy is a good one and would do more for lower earners and families than wiping student loans. Although I completely agree with legalisation of marijuana (and would take it much further than that), it wouldn’t be ‘election won’. Labour need to prove to people that they’re a serious force.

I can think of ten better policies that could achieve the same thing in a progressive way that doesn't also give the same benefit to the rich.

There's far more pressing priorities - giving the middle and upper class free broadband and spending billions to do so is stupid.

 

[Goat]

The same poll last month only had the gap at 5 points, Boris has increased it to 8 points, I would expect a 10-11 point gap come polling day.......

Pete, you cant vote for these rats, people WILL die.

 

[Seanjd]

I can think of ten better policies that could achieve the same thing in a progressive way that doesn't also give the same benefit to the rich.


There's far more pressing priorities - giving the middle and upper class free broadband and spending billions to do so is stupid.

Middle and upper classes won’t notice the saving as much as lower earners. Lower earners are also less likely to have an internet connection.

It would be a bit like scrapping prescription charges or dental costs; yes, it would benefit higher earners as well as lower earners, but would definitely be more important for lower earners.

 

[Tubey]

Middle and upper classes won’t notice the saving as much as lower earners. Lower earners are also less likely to have an internet connection.

You've missed my point that there's loads of other policies that would directly influence the lives of the poor that could be targeted to them and cost less.

The fact the rich won't notice the savings is exactly my point.

 

[Seanjd]

You've missed my point that there's loads of other policies that would directly influence the lives of the poor that could be targeted to them and cost less.

The fact the rich won't notice the savings is exactly my point.

Like what, out of interest?

 

[Tubey]

Like what, out of interest?

How about state grants to pay for broadband, water etc. if below an income threshold? Reduce the council tax burden? Increase child benefit to help alleviate child poverty? Extended free childcare for those under an income threshold?

All better ideas. All based on income thresholds.

 

[Seanjd]

How about state grants to pay for broadband, water etc. if below an income threshold? Reduce the council tax burden? Increase child benefit to help alleviate child poverty? Extended free childcare for those under an income threshold?

All better ideas. All based on income thresholds.

All of these things paper over cracks which have been caused by years of austerity and inequality. I think if you want to create real change, you need to create a system which gives necessities like internet, childcare, healthcare etc to everybody free of charge.

 

[Tubey]

All of these things paper over cracks which have been caused by years of austerity and inequality. I think if you want to create real change, you need to create a system which gives necessities like internet, childcare, healthcare etc to everybody free of charge.

They don't; they enact actual, real change to societal inequality by providing state help where it is needed most. You are now strangely against measures that tackle inequality because they... tackle inequality.

Universal internet isn't progressive. It's like how VAT is 20% for everyone - it's not a progressive tax. Similarly, just spending money on everyone isn't 'progressive spending', because the rich don't need it. Free water for everyone would be the same - the rich can afford it, so it'd be pointless spending when there's thousands of more pressing priorities.

 

[Seanjd]

They don't; they enact actual, real change to societal inequality by providing state help where it is needed most. You are now strangely against measures that tackle inequality because they... tackle inequality.

Universal internet isn't progressive. It's like how VAT is 20% for everyone - it's not a progressive tax. Similarly, just spending money on everyone isn't 'progressive spending', because the rich don't need it. Free water for everyone would be the same - the rich can afford it, so it'd be pointless spending when there's thousands of more pressing priorities.

Of course I’m not against measures tackling inequality. I’m saying that I agree with nationalising of basic services to provide everybody with quality without the danger of the poor being priced out of accessing them.

 

[Tubey]

Of course I’m not against measures tackling inequality. I’m saying that I agree with nationalising of basic services to provide everybody with quality without the danger of the poor being priced out of accessing them.

OK, but what would you rather do - spend 100% of money needed for the poor, or spend 50% of it and spaff away the rest on people who don't need it?

Because the latter is what I'd actually expect the Tories to do, not Labour.

I don't think universal coverage is a bad thing when it's paid for from a tax - the NHS for example being covered by National Insurance (well, at least in theory...), but I just don't see the point in giving the rich free stuff.