Maybe ending immigration would have a positive effect, in that it would force good folk of honest British stock (lol) into menial exploitative jobs and hammer home just what a pile of shit our society is
For people with limited education/skills, there will never be many employment opportunities which aren't predominantly menial - however the exploitative element can always be challenged.
That's quite an astonishing sight. Is there another politician in the UK at the moment that could engender such unqualified support from a crowd at a non-political event?
Realistically, those few thousand concert-goers won't change the election result. But it would have sent a chill down the spines of those at Conservative central office, who would assume that the best a Labour leader can do at a big event in front of a raucous crowd would be Kinnock's "we're all right" in Sheffield ahead of his cataclysmic election failure.
It won't move the needle. But support like that will make people believe that the polls can close further before election day. Game on!
That's quite an astonishing sight. Is there another politician in the UK at the moment that could engender such unqualified support from a crowd at a non-political event?
Realistically, those few thousand concert-goers won't change the election result. But it would have sent a chill down the spines of those at Conservative central office, who would assume that the best a Labour leader can do at a big event in front of a raucous crowd would be Kinnock's "we're all right" in Sheffield ahead of his cataclysmic election failure.
It won't move the needle. But support like that will make people believe that the polls can close further before election day. Game on!
I would love it and all that. I went out today and the only political sign I saw was a Labour one outside a house in Hastings. However pootling around the Weald as I was today I realised how many of the barely visible I felt around me would vote Tory. We have hard core enthusiasts really wanting to believe their own dreams can come true, verses a mass movement that have no dreams at all.
That's quite an astonishing sight. Is there another politician in the UK at the moment that could engender such unqualified support from a crowd at a non-political event?
Realistically, those few thousand concert-goers won't change the election result. But it would have sent a chill down the spines of those at Conservative central office, who would assume that the best a Labour leader can do at a big event in front of a raucous crowd would be Kinnock's "we're all right" in Sheffield ahead of his cataclysmic election failure.
It won't move the needle. But support like that will make people believe that the polls can close further before election day. Game on!
I would love it and all that. I went out today and the only political sign I saw was a Labour one outside a house in Hastings. However pootling around the Weald as I was today I realised how many of the barely visible I felt around me would vote Tory. We have hard core enthusiasts really wanting to believe their own dreams can come true, verses a mass movement that have no dreams at all.
I think Corbyn/labour voters are more willing to nail their colours to the mast publicly at rallies etc. It's not even necessarily 'shy tories' just that in my opinion Tory voters are unlikely to go out of their way to rallies with placards saying 'strong and stable' etc
I'm encouraged by the number of new voters in the younger demographic. I'm not expecting anything other than a Tory win, but it would be nice to see her and her party brought down a peg or two
I think someone mentioned earlier, vote anyone other than labour. I'm the same, but vote anyone else but Tory
3 Front page headlines across 4 days from one paper:
18th: YOU WON'T HAVE TO SELL YOUR HOME TO PAY FOR YOUR CARE
19th: AT LAST, A PM NOT AFRAID TO BE HONEST WITH YOU
21st: THE DEMENTIA TAX BACKLASH
I can only assume that someone at The Mail actually read the manifesto on the 20th!!!
I think it's more that the Mail on Sunday has different editor to the Daily Mail. IIRC The MoS's Brexit coverage was distinctly less gung-ho than the Daily version's too. So expect the fawning over Theresa May to resume tomorrow.
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
There was another brilliant bit when Marr asked him why they had a team of people tearing apart Labour's costings but didn't have anyone working on their own? Damien Green's response was " because our polices are realistic".
How can you say that if you don't know where the money is coming from?
Marr absolutey mauled him. I liked the bit at the end of the programme too when McDonnell exposed that Green had made a personal fortune from water privitisation. There is talk that Hammond will be sacked after the election and this bafoon will take over! I think this interview will make that less lilely! God, please give people eyes and ears over the coming weeks!
Green was trying to play this Labour borrowing scaremongering record, talk to the public like the economy is their own personal finances - insult their intelligence - but he used the example regarding nationalising these areas as a mortgage. What is irresponsible about a mortgage. You borrow money on something that increases in value and makes you richer.
How can you trust idiots who have the opportunity to call a snap election and thus more time to prepare their policies and get humilated by their opponent's manifesto?
Marr absolutey mauled him. I liked the bit at the end of the programme too when McDonnell exposed that Green had made a personal fortune from water privitisation. There is talk that Hammond will be sacked after the election and this bafoon will take over! I think this interview will make that less lilely! God, please give people eyes and ears over the coming weeks!
Green was trying to play this Labour borrowing scaremongering record, talk to the public like the economy is their own personal finances - insult their intelligence - but he used the example regarding nationalising these areas as a mortgage. What is irresponsible about a mortgage. You borrow money on something that increases in value and makes you richer.
How can you trust idiots who have the opportunity to call a snap election and thus more time to prepare their policies and get humilated by their opponent's manifesto?
It's totally humiliating for the government but it doesn't matter because they get a free pass from a heavily biased media that refuses to report on Tory cock-ups. If Diane Abbott had been saying this kind of nonsense Green was coming up with it would receive nothing less than 24 hour coverage.
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
Good post Muttley, particularly the bit in bold
It's a sentiment that could be applied to many situations. For example, let's take two children born with profound disabilities that more or less remove them from the workforce, one born to a family of millionaires and the other to a single mother forced into a shelter as her council house has been compromised by an abusive partner. Neither child has done anything to deserve any fortune or misfortune but Tory logic suggests it is up to each family to look after each child. The richer child will likely go with all the help he needs whereas the one born in destitution will likely lead a very poor quality life. Sure the NHS may ensure neither child dies but beyond that each will be left to their devices. Is this in anyway fair, given neither had any choice in the matter?
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
Good post Muttley, particularly the bit in bold
It's a sentiment that could be applied to many situations. For example, let's take two children born with profound disabilities that more or less remove them from the workforce, one born to a family of millionaires and the other to a single mother forced into a shelter as her council house has been compromised by an abusive partner. Neither child has done anything to deserve any fortune or misfortune but Tory logic suggests it is up to each family to look after each child. The richer child will likely go with all the help he needs whereas the one born in destitution will likely lead a very poor quality life. Sure the NHS may ensure neither child dies but beyond that each will be left to their devices. Is this in anyway fair, given neither had any choice in the matter?
Stick to things you know something about, Fiish.
I know you've gone all radical Labour on our asses for effect and to generate debate, and for that I doff my cap to your supposed enlightenment, but knowing everything about everything gets just a little bit tiring.
Are you aware of the support afforded to your single mother's child? Are you aware that this support has recently been extended to beyond school age?
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
Good post Muttley, particularly the bit in bold
It's a sentiment that could be applied to many situations. For example, let's take two children born with profound disabilities that more or less remove them from the workforce, one born to a family of millionaires and the other to a single mother forced into a shelter as her council house has been compromised by an abusive partner. Neither child has done anything to deserve any fortune or misfortune but Tory logic suggests it is up to each family to look after each child. The richer child will likely go with all the help he needs whereas the one born in destitution will likely lead a very poor quality life. Sure the NHS may ensure neither child dies but beyond that each will be left to their devices. Is this in anyway fair, given neither had any choice in the matter?
I just think with this whole dementia thing, it's actually very depressing and has shone a light on how scummy they really are. There must be a way that the cost of dementia can be absorbed. Too many people will get swallowed up by this if dementia continues to rise.
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
He suggests that the increasing costs of decent care could be paid for by having pensioners, or at least some of them continue to pay NI, maybe at a rate of 6%. He suggests an alternative of raising the levels of inheritance tax, but a better route would be to close the loopholes that the really rich find to avoid paying it. It is often described as the discretionary tax.
I have no time for the mail, but they have campaigned in relation to social care. The Conservatives have come up with a ticking time bomb of a policy that could cost many of its taditional voters hundreds of thousands of bounds. That and not saying where the winter fuel tax cut will be and they have given the ball to Labour to have a free shot. It will be interesting to see how clinical they are.
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
Good post Muttley, particularly the bit in bold
It's a sentiment that could be applied to many situations. For example, let's take two children born with profound disabilities that more or less remove them from the workforce, one born to a family of millionaires and the other to a single mother forced into a shelter as her council house has been compromised by an abusive partner. Neither child has done anything to deserve any fortune or misfortune but Tory logic suggests it is up to each family to look after each child. The richer child will likely go with all the help he needs whereas the one born in destitution will likely lead a very poor quality life. Sure the NHS may ensure neither child dies but beyond that each will be left to their devices. Is this in anyway fair, given neither had any choice in the matter?
Stick to things you know something about, Fiish.
I know you've gone all radical Labour on our asses for effect and to generate debate, and for that I doff my cap to your supposed enlightenment, but knowing everything about everything gets just a little bit tiring.
Are you aware of the support afforded to your single mother's child? Are you aware that this support has recently been extended to beyond school age?
Stop pretending that you know what my motives are, you're becoming increasingly boring with your pointless snide comments. You don't know me or what I know so stop presuming otherwise, it's a really pathetic tactic.
Prague & others, you are arguing points that I did not make. I was simply stating that I believe this assertion in relation to Polish workers to be untrue as far as the vast majority of UK people were concerned. (I accept that some racists would want it, but that makes the UK no different to most countries).
"These guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like. "
I am saying that for the vast majority of the UK public it is wrong to suggest that immigrant workers here are no longer wanted in the UK and they will be off home soon. No more no less.
You obviously didn't listen to the World at One this Sunday lunchtime then, with its report from Norfolk. You wrote that I told a lie. That's a rather silly way to say that I expressed an opinion you consider to be erroneous. The BBC report suggested that it was perfectly reasonable for me to hold that opinion. What is "vast majority"? That's the problem, isn't it. 80%, I suppose, would be a numerically correct figure to cover that phrase. Well, the 20% could make daily life pretty unpleasant for immigrants, couldn't they? And immigrants always feel insecure. The stories are going around, back in these countries, and I have heard it reported that some from CEE are already packing their bags, although I have not seen any numbers yet.
Prague & others, you are arguing points that I did not make. I was simply stating that I believe this assertion in relation to Polish workers to be untrue as far as the vast majority of UK people were concerned. (I accept that some racists would want it, but that makes the UK no different to most countries).
"These guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like. "
I am saying that for the vast majority of the UK public it is wrong to suggest that immigrant workers here are no longer wanted in the UK and they will be off home soon. No more no less.
You obviously didn't listen to the World at One this Sunday lunchtime then, with its report from Norfolk. You wrote that I told a lie. That's a rather silly way to say that I expressed an opinion you consider to be erroneous. The BBC report suggested that it was perfectly reasonable for me to hold that opinion. What is "vast majority"? That's the problem, isn't it. 80%, I suppose, would be a numerically correct figure to cover that phrase. Well, the 20% could make daily life pretty unpleasant for immigrants, couldn't they? And immigrants always feel insecure. The stories are going around, back in these countries, and I have heard it reported that some from CEE are already packing their bags, although I have not seen any numbers yet.
Well all I can reiterate, is that the Brexit immigration issue was purely about having controlled immigration in the future, as opposed to uncontrolled immigration.
This was for practical reasons not racist reasons.
Following the news and political programmes as I do, I have heard this point of view made by a large variety of different ethniciites. I do not believe these views are to do with racism, but purely to do with the pressures being put on elements of our society, through the increased amount of people in the UK.
You are almost giving the impression that the UK is now some sort of racist state. Well I literally just do not have any experience of witnessing this.
I don't doubt some idiot racists have taken advantage of the situation, but personally I have seen no difference and no one I have spoken to has noticed any difference.
Actually, I make a point of being even more polite to people of all ethnicites, than I did before.
Perhaps, instead of saying thank-you, I might say thank-you very much.
Yes of course there has been a rise in racist incidents.
However, if you come to the UK I would still say it is possibly one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world and we are not telling "foreigners" to go home you're not wanted here.
This is the UK I see. I fully accept others will say they see a different UK.
Prague & others, you are arguing points that I did not make. I was simply stating that I believe this assertion in relation to Polish workers to be untrue as far as the vast majority of UK people were concerned. (I accept that some racists would want it, but that makes the UK no different to most countries).
"These guys are no longer wanted in the UK, they will be off home soon, so no need to spend taxpayers money on their like. "
I am saying that for the vast majority of the UK public it is wrong to suggest that immigrant workers here are no longer wanted in the UK and they will be off home soon. No more no less.
You obviously didn't listen to the World at One this Sunday lunchtime then, with its report from Norfolk. You wrote that I told a lie. That's a rather silly way to say that I expressed an opinion you consider to be erroneous. The BBC report suggested that it was perfectly reasonable for me to hold that opinion. What is "vast majority"? That's the problem, isn't it. 80%, I suppose, would be a numerically correct figure to cover that phrase. Well, the 20% could make daily life pretty unpleasant for immigrants, couldn't they? And immigrants always feel insecure. The stories are going around, back in these countries, and I have heard it reported that some from CEE are already packing their bags, although I have not seen any numbers yet.
Well all I can reiterate, is that the Brexit immigration issue was purely about having controlled immigration in the future, as opposed to uncontrolled immigration.
This was for practical reasons not racist reasons.
Following the news and political programmes as I do, I have heard this point of view made by a large variety of different ethniciites. I do not believe these views are to do with racism, but purely to do with the pressures being put on elements of our society, through the increased amount of people in the UK.
You are almost giving the impression that the UK is now some sort of racist state. Well I literally just do not have any experience of witnessing this.
I don't doubt some idiot racists have taken advantage of the situation, but personally I have seen no difference and no one I have spoken to has noticed any difference.
Actually, I make a point of being even more polite to people of all ethnicites, than I did before.
Perhaps, instead of saying thank-you, I might say thank-you very much.
Yes of course there has been a rise in racist incidents.
However, if you come to the UK I would still say it is possibly one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world and we are not telling "foreigners" to go home you're not wanted here.
This is the UK I see. I fully accept others will say they see a different UK.
Well if it is in the manifesto, why not bring it in a.s.a.p. It has been costed and it is fairer for those in education now. There is a small glimmer of hope that we could stick two fingers up at the mega rich corporations that are controlling us and have a better country.
For selfish reasons, I would love to meet Jeremy Corbyn and apologise to the bloke for things I have said about him and the creation of a new party. He is showing that he is the best Labour leader we have had in many, many years.
Well if it is in the manifesto, why not bring it in a.s.a.p. It has been costed and it is fairer for those in education now. There is a small glimmer of hope that we could stick two fingers up at the mega rich corporations that are controlling us and have a better country.
For selfish reasons, I would love to meet Jeremy Corbyn and apologise to the bloke for things I have said about him and the creation of a new party. He is showing that he is the best Labour leader we have had in many, many years.
Really ?
We'll see - I think a good leader would have an ounce of electability as well as clear principles and I still expect him to get mullered in a couple of weeks time.
I like the Labour manifesto, I like the promises, but I also agreed with all the arguments against Brexit last time and look how that turned out. On some level I feel like Labour are still not connecting with huge swathes of the country and - just like the leave campaign - the Tory's are better at the small sound bite messages that are easily shared by social media that proved effective in appealing to the alienated millions during the Brexit campaign.
On the continued debate on the 'dementia tax' and if people should be paying for their care unless I've missed it Labour haven't said what they are going to do on costs. Has anyone seen/read something I haven't?
I find it hard to believe with Labours other policies and the 'rich' having to pay more that care is all of a sudden going to be free for all? Especially not taking into account usual living costs.
Mutely, will Uni fees (or lack of) apply to those already attending? I.e. Starting year 2 or 3 in September. I'd made the assumption that as the bringing forward of free tuition to this September wasn't in the 'fully costed' manifesto it wasn't costed, they must of had monies in reserve then...... or maybe they realised that a large proportion of those who would go this September would simply take a year out, why wouldn't you........
Well if it is in the manifesto, why not bring it in a.s.a.p. It has been costed and it is fairer for those in education now. There is a small glimmer of hope that we could stick two fingers up at the mega rich corporations that are controlling us and have a better country.
For selfish reasons, I would love to meet Jeremy Corbyn and apologise to the bloke for things I have said about him and the creation of a new party. He is showing that he is the best Labour leader we have had in many, many years.
Really ?
We'll see - I think a good leader would have an ounce of electability as well as clear principles and I still expect him to get mullered in a couple of weeks time.
I like the Labour manifesto, I like the promises, but I also agreed with all the arguments against Brexit last time and look how that turned out. On some level I feel like Labour are still not connecting with huge swathes of the country and - just like the leave campaign - the Tory's are better at the small sound bite messages that are easily shared by social media that proved effective in appealing to the alienated millions during the Brexit campaign.
Well if it is in the manifesto, why not bring it in a.s.a.p. It has been costed and it is fairer for those in education now. There is a small glimmer of hope that we could stick two fingers up at the mega rich corporations that are controlling us and have a better country.
For selfish reasons, I would love to meet Jeremy Corbyn and apologise to the bloke for things I have said about him and the creation of a new party. He is showing that he is the best Labour leader we have had in many, many years.
Really ?
We'll see - I think a good leader would have an ounce of electability as well as clear principles and I still expect him to get mullered in a couple of weeks time.
I like the Labour manifesto, I like the promises, but I also agreed with all the arguments against Brexit last time and look how that turned out. On some level I feel like Labour are still not connecting with huge swathes of the country and - just like the leave campaign - the Tory's are better at the small sound bite messages that are easily shared by social media that proved effective in appealing to the alienated millions during the Brexit campaign.
They have connected with me.
Fair enough - but that was the problem last time. The Remain campaign connected with people that were always going to vote to stay anyway, a good leader would be able to appeal to people who wouldn't normally vote for his party, that's what May is doing and that's why she'll win this election with a big majority.
We will see - she certainly needs to up her game - I don't think Cameron would have made such a hash of things. Maybe it was arrogance, but the Conservative manifesto was full of holes with suicidal policies that hit trdaitional Tory voters.
I passionately believe that to get the deal on Europe that we need to get, Corbyn's more pragmatic approach is more likely to succeed that the threats to take the ball away, when the EU has its own ball! I can't see anything May has done that suggests she is a good leader - I know lots of people despise her, even a number in her own party!
Comments
Realistically, those few thousand concert-goers won't change the election result. But it would have sent a chill down the spines of those at Conservative central office, who would assume that the best a Labour leader can do at a big event in front of a raucous crowd would be Kinnock's "we're all right" in Sheffield ahead of his cataclysmic election failure.
It won't move the needle. But support like that will make people believe that the polls can close further before election day. Game on!
I went out today and the only political sign I saw was a Labour one outside a house in Hastings.
However pootling around the Weald as I was today I realised how many of the barely visible I felt around me would vote Tory.
We have hard core enthusiasts really wanting to believe their own dreams can come true, verses a mass movement that have no dreams at all.
I'm encouraged by the number of new voters in the younger demographic. I'm not expecting anything other than a Tory win, but it would be nice to see her and her party brought down a peg or two
I think someone mentioned earlier, vote anyone other than labour. I'm the same, but vote anyone else but Tory
What has struck me in this elections, is how the Labour manifesto has wiped the floor with the Tory one - I'm not talking about content here, I'm talking about presentation, costings and detail. The social care proposal is a potential disaster for them and those of us who are unfortunate enough to get ill. We have a national health service in this country, but if you are unlucky enough to get dementia it isn't treated as an illness. Now they are looking to hammer people who have strokes and disabilities that require care. All parties agreed with Dilnot's recomendations but the Tories ditched them. Now they have brought in an ill thought out half-baked plan that is far less fair and is going to concern their traditional voters greatly.
Some of us will get dementia - we don't know who. It is much fairer to spread the risk than ask those who are unfortuante enough to get it to lose their savings. Some of us may have a stroke and need support at home, same there. What the Tories didn't addressed is the fact that those paying for their care, pay 40% for the same care as those the local authroity pays for. So if you get ill and have savings it isn't just about paying for your care, but paying for other ill peoples care when those who are not ill don't have to! The Daily Mail exposed this recently, although I have known it for some time. Dilnot suggested that the solution is found across parties - Labour supports this and his reccomendations. There is no element of fairness or common sense in what teh Tories are proposing, and it is going to threaten their traditional voters!
How can you say that if you don't know where the money is coming from?
Green was trying to play this Labour borrowing scaremongering record, talk to the public like the economy is their own personal finances - insult their intelligence - but he used the example regarding nationalising these areas as a mortgage. What is irresponsible about a mortgage. You borrow money on something that increases in value and makes you richer.
How can you trust idiots who have the opportunity to call a snap election and thus more time to prepare their policies and get humilated by their opponent's manifesto?
Vote Liberal - you know it makes sense.
I know you've gone all radical Labour on our asses for effect and to generate debate, and for that I doff my cap to your supposed enlightenment, but knowing everything about everything gets just a little bit tiring.
Are you aware of the support afforded to your single mother's child?
Are you aware that this support has recently been extended to beyond school age?
He suggests that the increasing costs of decent care could be paid for by having pensioners, or at least some of them continue to pay NI, maybe at a rate of 6%. He suggests an alternative of raising the levels of inheritance tax, but a better route would be to close the loopholes that the really rich find to avoid paying it. It is often described as the discretionary tax.
Don't post angry.
What is "vast majority"? That's the problem, isn't it. 80%, I suppose, would be a numerically correct figure to cover that phrase. Well, the 20% could make daily life pretty unpleasant for immigrants, couldn't they? And immigrants always feel insecure. The stories are going around, back in these countries, and I have heard it reported that some from CEE are already packing their bags, although I have not seen any numbers yet.
This was for practical reasons not racist reasons.
Following the news and political programmes as I do, I have heard this point of view made by a large variety of different ethniciites. I do not believe these views are to do with racism, but purely to do with the pressures being put on elements of our society, through the increased amount of people in the UK.
You are almost giving the impression that the UK is now some sort of racist state. Well I literally just do not have any experience of witnessing this.
I don't doubt some idiot racists have taken advantage of the situation, but personally I have seen no difference and no one I have spoken to has noticed any difference.
Actually, I make a point of being even more polite to people of all ethnicites, than I did before.
Perhaps, instead of saying thank-you, I might say thank-you very much.
Yes of course there has been a rise in racist incidents.
However, if you come to the UK I would still say it is possibly one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world and we are not telling "foreigners" to go home you're not wanted here.
This is the UK I see. I fully accept others will say they see a different UK.
Racist imo
Uni tuition fee's - bringing this forward to this September's students. Fully costed of course...... paid for with the Corp tax and over £80k tax
For selfish reasons, I would love to meet Jeremy Corbyn and apologise to the bloke for things I have said about him and the creation of a new party. He is showing that he is the best Labour leader we have had in many, many years.
We'll see - I think a good leader would have an ounce of electability as well as clear principles and I still expect him to get mullered in a couple of weeks time.
I like the Labour manifesto, I like the promises, but I also agreed with all the arguments against Brexit last time and look how that turned out. On some level I feel like Labour are still not connecting with huge swathes of the country and - just like the leave campaign - the Tory's are better at the small sound bite messages that are easily shared by social media that proved effective in appealing to the alienated millions during the Brexit campaign.
I find it hard to believe with Labours other policies and the 'rich' having to pay more that care is all of a sudden going to be free for all? Especially not taking into account usual living costs.
Mutely, will Uni fees (or lack of) apply to those already attending? I.e. Starting year 2 or 3 in September. I'd made the assumption that as the bringing forward of free tuition to this September wasn't in the 'fully costed' manifesto it wasn't costed, they must of had monies in reserve then...... or maybe they realised that a large proportion of those who would go this September would simply take a year out, why wouldn't you........
I passionately believe that to get the deal on Europe that we need to get, Corbyn's more pragmatic approach is more likely to succeed that the threats to take the ball away, when the EU has its own ball! I can't see anything May has done that suggests she is a good leader - I know lots of people despise her, even a number in her own party!