General Election 2017 thread

[Replies From View]

I was only joking when I said I hoped TheFalconMalteser dies in his sleep tonight.

You should vote-swap with someone who'll gladly say it whilst not joking.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Labour. For the few not the many.

Oh, ice burn. Whoofh.

[Replies From View]

Ah yes I see what he did there - he swapped around "few" and "many" in the Labour slogan, reversing its meaning.

[Danger Man]

Because, when it comes to FPTP, it's true.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Because, when it comes to FPTP, it's true.

You probably won't convince a party that have won 3 elections in the last 20 years very, very comfortably that's true.

[Dr Rock]

But in my lifetime the Tories have been in power about 75% of the time.

[Replies From View]

But in my lifetime the Tories have been in power about 75% of the time.

HAHA TEN YEARS OLD.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

http://evolvepolitics.com/realise-current-conservative-politician-literally-member-ira-right/

Today on IRA TOP TRUMPS

Conservatives win with HAVING AN ACTUAL EX-MEMBER OF THE IRA AMONG THEIR RANKS

[pancreas]

http://evolvepolitics.com/realise-current-conservative-politician-literally-member-ira-right/

Today on IRA TOP TRUMPS

Conservatives win with HAVING AN ACTUAL EX-MEMBER OF THE IRA AMONG THEIR RANKS

Ooo that's quite useful? Is it true? evolvepolitics can be a bit fake-newsy. There was some bollocks about the Cons wanting to restart the ivory trade. Turned out they just hadn't put anything in the manifesto this time round.

[Replies From View]

They want to restart the ivory trade, but using foxes' teeth.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ooo that's quite useful? Is it true? evolvepolitics can be a bit fake-newsy. There was some bollocks about the Cons wanting to restart the ivory trade. Turned out they just hadn't put anything in the manifesto this time round.

Yes, I mean that wasn't fake news but a little sly, disingenuously framed with a clickbait headline.

The individual herself has gone on record, so in this case it appears to be legit, the result of quite a bit of digging.

I sincerely hope it's true because every single question about it can be responded to by saying:

I MET REPUBLICANS TO BEGIN A PEACE PROCESS AND MY RISKS HELPED ESTABLISH PEACE AND PROBABLY SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES

THE TORIES HAVE SOMEONE WHO WAS ACTUALLY IN THE IRA

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Tell you what lads, having spoken to elderly relatives at the weekend this "dementia tax" nonsense has been noted and is not going down well

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Telling baby boomers to make any sacrifices whatsoever is electoral kryptonite.

It's not even for any sense of a greater good, it's just for a corporate land grab. I suspect most Mail and Telegraph readers would be strongly opposed.

It barely even makes senses (doesn't make sense). They criticise Labour for the tax plans by saying 80,000 a year is not a pot of money yet at the same time say £100,000 is enough.

[Paul Calf]

It's an unlimited tax on inheritance. It's not the boomers who are going to make this sacrifice; it's their children. Again.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's an unlimited tax on inheritance. It's not the boomers who are going to make this sacrifice; it's their children. Again.

Well, the children will suffer but ownership of the property will be relinquished by the boomers.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Good idea to spend the day mentioning "Theresa May's dementia tax" to people lads.

[Paul Calf]

Well, the children will suffer but ownership of the property will be relinquished by the boomers.

...at the precise point that they don't need it any more. Whoever the government nominates to take control of the vast housing stock that'll be released as a result of this is going to be in a position of enormous power.

[NoSleep]

Telling baby boomers to make any sacrifices whatsoever is electoral kryptonite.

Presumably you're still concentrating on that momentary bump in 1946 rather than the rather larger and more extended baby boom that peaked around 1964.

Census 2011:

[TheFalconMalteser]

Struggling to get over lots of "left wingers" telling me that inherited wealth is a great thing and we need to defend it.

What I see is:

1. This "against the 1% view" indulging people to believe that we don't really have structural problems with inequality and a social gradient across all society, we just have fat cats and corporate tax evasion. 
2. A bonkers inequalities argument which focuses on the difference between wealthy homeowners and modest homeowners, ALL OF WHOM EVENTUALLY GET THEIR KIDS ON THE PROPERTY LADDER, not homeowners and non-homeowners
3. Now I'm certain some of these people have no doubt benefited from inherited wealth themselves, or plan to... But it creates a strange movement where people on £70k and who have bought their house based on their parents carking it, can watch Daniel Blake and feel really quite cross about that poor Kestrel dying at the end, and they think they're all in the same gang... But actually tackle benefits for the unemployed?  Haha, fuuuuck that, not an issue.  Imagine a Labour Party which is demanding Labour commit to increasing benefits with the same anger with which they criticise May for increasing the amount people cared for at home pay.  Remarkable stuff.

So this culture is awful, it's not remotely radical, it focuses on public ownership as transformational, rather than improving the lives of people with no money and who live in shit towns.  Someone on benefits, 3 years into a Labour Government?  Well, I'm sure the taste of their nationalised water supply will be delicious, and they'll be chuffed to bits that future high earners are having their tuition fees paid for them.

Corbyn's Labour Party is basically the Tea Party.

[chand]

Struggling to get over lots of "left wingers" telling me that inherited wealth is a great thing and we need to defend it.

I'm in favour of greater taxes on inherited wealth across the board, not targeting specific pensioners with particular illnesses.

[biggytitbo]

Whilst Jeremy 'I wouldnt be surprised if he was in the IRA' Corbyn has to answer these inane questions about the complexities of his stance on events from 30 years ago, why is it the likes of Michael Fallon get a free pass on his vigorous support of the South African apartheid regime? According to Craig Murray who worked in the foreign office at the time, Fallon was instrumental in pushing the Thatcher government to a more hardline position on not condemning apartheid and the fucker needs to be called out on it at every opportunity.

[jobotic]

Neil Hamilton was a guest speaker at the Springbok Club - dedicated to the return of "civilised rule" to South Africa and Rhodesia (as they insist on calling it).

No one seemed to give a shit - it's almost as if the Tory press don't mind a bit of apartheid.

[pancreas]

Well, the children will suffer but ownership of the property will be relinquished by the boomers.

But as the social care is increasingly privatised, you're basically just giving your house to Richard Branson, aren't you?

[Absorb the anus burn]

Fallon recently got torn another arsehole by Thornberry live on TV.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/may/14/emily-thornberry-ambushes-michael-fallon-assad-meeting-video

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

That's true, so the response to Falco's remark:

struggling to get over lots of "left wingers" telling me that inherited wealth is a great thing and we need to defend it

Is.. it's about the transfer of wealth and property from individuals to corporations, or corporate fascism which is under the definition quite literally what this move is.

Why would left wingers hate corporate fascism? Uhhh gee....lemme think

[biggytitbo]

For a generation that has enjoyed a series of vast unearned windfalls, most at the expense of those following, I don't see any merit in the argument we should also pay for their care bills, not least because when we're that age we'll be lucky to even be retired, if not simply dumped in a bin.

[colacentral]

It's staggering that TFM doesn't understand that this dementia tax business creates more inequality. It's good for the very poorest who have no owned property, true, but it's also good for the richest who pay for private care. Everyone in the middle gets squeezed downwards, hurting social mobility.

[pancreas]

For a generation that has enjoyed a series of vast unearned windfalls, most at the expense of those following, I don't see any merit in the argument we should also pay for their care bills, not least because when we're that age we'll be lucky to even be retired, if not simply dumped in a bin.

It's notoriously difficult to change your mind, but let me try. I entirely agree with you that baby-boomers should have their wealth taxed. The problem with this proposal is that it is
a) unfair: if you die of a heart attack, you get to pass on your wealth.
b) another attack on the welfare state: the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use. Since social care is within its remit, it means that the NHS is being moved to a situation where the elderly are on something like medicare. You could presumably insure yourself against dementia, and we start to have a model which looks very much like the States.
c) encourages children to arrange accidents for their parents: if your parents are eating up your inheritance pot, the arguments for euthanasia probably start to crystallise in your mind.

There are much better ways to get people's money off them. Not least a land tax. Don't let yourself be derailed by spite, biggy.

[biggytitbo]

It's notoriously difficult to change your mind, but let me try. I entirely agree with you that baby-boomers should have their wealth taxed. The problem with this proposal is that it is
a) unfair: if you die of a heart attack, you get to pass on your wealth.
b) another attack on the welfare state: the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use. Since social care is within its remit, it means that the NHS is being moved to a situation where the elderly are on something like medicare. You could presumably insure yourself against dementia, and we start to have a model which looks very much like the States.
c) encourages children to arrange accidents for their parents: if your parents are eating up your inheritance pot, the arguments for euthanasia probably start to crystallise in your mind.

There are much better ways to get people's money off them. Not least a land tax. Don't let yourself be derailed by spite, biggy.

1. It's not always possible to create a policy thats entirely 'fair' to everyone, I couldn't point to any existing one that is and this is hardly egregiously unfair
2. I don't think the welfare state is really there to help people sat on large unearned assets, especially not in a world were the current financial models are looking increasingly unworkable.
3. I think this is a bit of a silly point since these things are crimes and should be pursued as such, its not an excuse to avoid doing something.


I agree about the land tax but its only an alternative if it has some reasonable prospect of ever happening, and I don't think it does, at least not at the moment. Maybe a few years of a policy like that will bring it on to the agenda as  serious prospect?

[SpiderChrist]

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/866608947293114368

Theresa May on social care funding  - Theresa May announces cap on social care costs will be option in consultation on reforms to be launched after general election - BBC News

Strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable