"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
@Fiiish will know this - what percentage of Parliament needs to agree to (another) election under the Fixed Term Parliament Act?
Am I right in thinking that, for the first time, it could be the opposition parties who will, in effect, decide whether there will be a snap election.
If the House resolves a no confidence vote in the Government and it is not overturned within 14 days then a snap election can be called. This is a simple majority.
Thanks. But what's the situation when there isn't a vote of no confidence? I am sure I remember there's another way for the government to determine a snap election. I think there's a 67% majority or something..?
Yeah, if 2 thirds of the House agree too. I think that's how this snap election was called?
So, one potential scenario is 1. Disaffected Tory backbenchers demanding May quits. 2. May not quitting. 3. Tory backbenchers calling for another election unless she goes. 4. May still not quitting. 5. Tory backbenchers demanding another General Election. 5. Labour deciding against it.
It seems like the Conservatives have stumbled into a similar wreck that Labour has just stumbled out of.
The irony is rather delicious, not to mention the obvious irony regarding the current coalition partners.
If it goes down to a vote of no confidence, and the Conservative Party membership get to vote in a leadership election (i.e as they should've, if an opponent to May was held internally) then I will assume May will be destroyed. Personally speaking, I was raging throughout most of the election campaign at just how poor she was performing, and I do not blame any undecided/floating voters for being dissuaded.
She was useless as home secretary, she's been a poor prime minister, she's a robotic campaigner, and she's a dire electioneer.
Not just that she tried to pretend she was a tough woman another thatcher
But no she shit herself at any face to face she was Shown as a really weak leader cowardly i lost faith in her long before the election
I told my mrs it was a shit call and not needed and as soon as she did she came out with two shit propositions the fox hunting and social care
If she would've attacked the manefesto and made more about the inheritance tax plans the corporation tax and picked holes in every other aspect of the great labour give away she would have not lost this amount of seats she is totally to blame I was incredulous with rage at 4 am this morning I didn't get home till 1 am went to bed royally pissed off at the mistakes she had made that by 4 am I was back on way to Wembley
This thread has been outstanding - am going to miss it...
Can't we open one on the German election or something?
I am up for it @newyorkaddick but I could just as easily vote for Merkels one nation CDUism as I could for the SPD, so we might not be poles apart on what we think.
Could we possibly keep it a secret from the Johnny-come-lately right wing snowflakes* who seem to have joined this thread today though as I much prefer reasoned debate to talking shite.
*Honourable exception to Covered End.
@newyorkaddick looks like we won't need to do the German election now.
Indeed -what a mess!
However could be the best thing for the country if it leads to compromise and another election effectively a referendum on the (then better known) Brexit terms.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Shit i don't know if Corbyn sneaked in the back door undetected but I just checked my last pay slip and it appears that I got skinned alive in tax deductions last month in comparison to my step sister who pays piss all apparently.
Someone better quickly tell the Tories that they accidentally started introducing Jezza's policies without him knowing before we went to the poll.
Mate I watched it I was waiting for his answer to tell me what taxes he is reducing to counter that for me and there was no answer of any merit
The biggest fear for me and many of the other people I meet through the small business forums and entrepreneural forums that were attended by all three parties over the last year to discuss what help would be on offer and not one party offered any hope other than keeping the corporation rate down
If labour came in the only thing we could do would be to cut costs = lay people off Increase charges that if your customers accepted would result in people paying more at the till for items
If and it's a big If they had chosen in a few of their policies to means test who should be impacted and made it truly fairer then the swing wouldn't be that hard to make
Take the free child care announcement I'd love that for anyone who is working or training to work not just anyone being granted it
Corp tax rise was a killer for me it equated to a Huge amount of money to have to find
Canx all uni fees yet again no not everyone means test it and then offer it to those who truly can't afford it
Ok mate, but I heard different then......
The problem with the whole election was that there was not enough clarity
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
T be fair mate, if there had not been so much 'smear ' of Corbyn for talking to terrorists (the same as John Major did to achieve the good friday peace process) none of the subsequesnt debate would be taking place. The phrase about glass houses and stones seems fairly apt here.
Mate I watched it I was waiting for his answer to tell me what taxes he is reducing to counter that for me and there was no answer of any merit
The biggest fear for me and many of the other people I meet through the small business forums and entrepreneural forums that were attended by all three parties over the last year to discuss what help would be on offer and not one party offered any hope other than keeping the corporation rate down
If labour came in the only thing we could do would be to cut costs = lay people off Increase charges that if your customers accepted would result in people paying more at the till for items
If and it's a big If they had chosen in a few of their policies to means test who should be impacted and made it truly fairer then the swing wouldn't be that hard to make
Take the free child care announcement I'd love that for anyone who is working or training to work not just anyone being granted it
Corp tax rise was a killer for me it equated to a Huge amount of money to have to find
Canx all uni fees yet again no not everyone means test it and then offer it to those who truly can't afford it
Ok mate, but I heard different then......
The problem with the whole election was that there was not enough clarity
Sorry mate Im not having that....at least not from the Labour side....
Mate I watched it I was waiting for his answer to tell me what taxes he is reducing to counter that for me and there was no answer of any merit
The biggest fear for me and many of the other people I meet through the small business forums and entrepreneural forums that were attended by all three parties over the last year to discuss what help would be on offer and not one party offered any hope other than keeping the corporation rate down
If labour came in the only thing we could do would be to cut costs = lay people off Increase charges that if your customers accepted would result in people paying more at the till for items
If and it's a big If they had chosen in a few of their policies to means test who should be impacted and made it truly fairer then the swing wouldn't be that hard to make
Take the free child care announcement I'd love that for anyone who is working or training to work not just anyone being granted it
Corp tax rise was a killer for me it equated to a Huge amount of money to have to find
Canx all uni fees yet again no not everyone means test it and then offer it to those who truly can't afford it
Ok mate, but I heard different then......
The problem with the whole election was that there was not enough clarity
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Shit i don't know if Corbyn sneaked in the back door undetected but I just checked my last pay slip and it appears that I got skinned alive in tax deductions last month in comparison to my step sister who pays piss all apparently.
Someone better quickly tell the Tories that they accidentally started introducing Jezza's policies without him knowing before we went to the poll.
See my question above as I'm genuinely interested in what people's views are of fair (and at what salary level). We had a bit of a round table at work after a meeting a few weeks back and quite of few of the 'Rich should pay more' were genuinely shocked at the % level some were paying (they didn't know about the 60% bit, those paying tax on Child allowance or employers pension contributions/health care for instance)
"Labour plans to increase the main rate of corporation tax, reaching 26 per cent by 2020-21, but to reintroduce the ‘small profits rate’ for small businesses. This would apply to companies with annual profits below £300k and would be set at 20%, rising to 21% in 2020-21."
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Do you know what, I was thinking exactly the same, but I'd only just woken up when you typed this.
As you say Labour celebrating ecstatically is akin to Charlton fans doing the same for ending up 13th.
It's hard to imagine the Tories could be so complacent & poor next time.
If they put together a properly costed manifesto.
Take out/improve the vote losers such as, the so called "dementia tax", put more police on the streets etc, they could well get a majority next time.
Having said that I acknowledge anything could happen.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
It's lucky that a chunk of these people use some of their income towards private healthcare thus relieving the pressure on the NHS isn't it?
The argument that always pisses me off, which will doubtless be trotted out imminently by a second or third placed party, is "But 58% of the electorate dont want a conservative government". Might be true, but then so is it that 60% of the electorate don't want a labour government. Or in Scotland, where 63% don't want an SNP government. It's a stupid argument all round unless somebody gets >50% of the vote.
I don't think people celebrating the result are celebrating for Labour necessarily, they're celebrating for the country.
I dread to think how much worse things would've got with five more Tory years - no Brexit deal, dementia tax for the old, housing crisis for the young, continual public spending cuts... The vote yesterday stopped the nasty party dead in their tracks.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
It's lucky that a chunk of these people use some of their income towards private healthcare thus relieving the pressure on the NHS isn't it?
I would imagine that is a completely insignificant amount when compared to the nation as a whole.
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
In an ideal world, Corbyn would be an ideal leader. Unfortunately we don't currently live in that world though. I will say that he campaigned on a brilliant platform of positivity, managed to energise the younger voters, and essentially steamrollered through some very tough press comments. I admire the man, if only for showing that the status-quo isn't the only way.
To use your list, and none of these were part of my reason for voting against the chap obviously, I had a few of my own:
On Tuition
There's a certain amount of irony in the free tuition - without means testing - when it would directly benefit those better off. The statistics show that the level of fees doesn't actually affect participation from poorer communities; see the Higher Education rates of Scotland vs England for a good testament to that.
On the NHS
The NHS needs to be protected, and I'll begrudgingly accept that on face value the Labour party provide better connotations for it. Alas, real questions could be asked over the number of £30k+ middle managers, £40k+ diversity managers*, and so on. I can't comment directly as I don't work in the NHS, I've worked with ex-NHS staff so can only go on what I've heard.
I would rather improve cost efficiency by restructuring where possible than throwing more money at an inefficient system; so I think there is a real balance to be had here. Increase funding, but don't be scared of the dreaded "cut" word.
*Would a party who campaigned on the terms of "Unlocking the potential of ethnic minorities" - something I've only seen ethnic minorities kick off over - really remove such positions?
On the Police
Similar to the NHS I can't speak with direct insight, albeit only friends and family who are in the police. It's fine having the proper numbers if they're properly resourced and supported, the sentiment is that this would not happen.
Simply put, look at Diane Abbott's voting history and consider her outspoken views; would you have felt her responsible to preside over the police? She's gone now, but she would've been in charge of policing until Wednesday. Do I need to highlight her silly Twitter exchange - and the numerous police responses - over spit-hoods? Anecdotally, from officers that have liaised with her in her borough, I understand she's generally treated them with distain.
On the Rich
The richest is such a subjective term; and I believe the figure banded about - the top 5% (or £80k+) was genuinely misguided. Too small a percentage to effect real tax receipt changes, and too low a threshold to really hit those with the money to spare. Not to mention - this does nothing for the majority of the really "rich" who have far better ways of accessing their money than via their PAYE income. Starting with the £500 p/day contractors on £12k annual salaries and continuing from there. (Worth noting that Tory policy had a lot of these chaps quite worried though.)
It's also worth that with regards to Corp Tax, tax receipts were higher with a lower rate.
It's also difficult to ignore some of the work the Conservatives have done on bringing the poorest up a notch, especially with regards to an increased personal allowance.
Renationalising Industry
With him on renationalising infrastructure - including public transport. The rail network is the prime example of what happens when you put profit over performance, and the resulting effect it has on the public. (And arguably, the economy via public productivity and morale.)
Rob, I don't think you can just look at this result in terms of absolute number of seats. There's so much subtext to this. From the start I said anything but an increase in their majority would be a failure for the Tories, a loss of seats would be a disaster but what we actually got was verging on one of the biggest fuck ups in political history. Sure, they're still in power, just but for me it's all about momentum.
When this election was announced how many honestly thought it would end up like this? Corbyn was so far behind that Labour not being wiped off the political map altogether was being seen by some as doing well.
Labour still lost the election, that can't be ignored but it isn't what was important here. We all felt that the Tories would win but in losing the election Labour still won. I guess you could say lost the battle to win the war but we will have to wait and see how the war pans out.
I was just trying to put a bit of perspective on the results itself in comparison to what has come before. I've said a few times this morning that the Conservatives royally messed up, utter utter failure and Labour did well - both from where they were, but even in those circumstances when you compare yesterday to the previous 6 elections it's not as if the country has listened to Corbyn's ideas and said 'yup that's for me' compared to previous labour leaders, he is still well short of a majority and just about joint 2nd worst election result for Labour in the last 7 elections or 25 years.
I don't honestly see in another election with the same manifesto's Labour romping home with a majority. I think Labour have a real chance though if they can move slightly more to the right of gaining power, much like Blair did (and they wouldn't have to move as far as he did).... it seems to me that there is still a core of centre people in this country that form the majority. As generations change that may too, but I don't see that for the foreseeable future. I can see more the Conservatives learning from their lessons and the next election taking a majority again if Corbyn remains, they were only 7/8 seats short under the worst election campaign known to man!
I don't care what colour a party is or what name they take, I've never had any allegiance on that basis, if either party had been slightly more central it could have been a massively different result, that's my take anyway, if you want a government that truly represents ALL the people then you need to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. Not that I can stand the bloke in the end but that's effectively what Blair did in 1997 with 418 seats and again in 2001, how many leaders can say they had that much of a majority? As per usual those seeking election need to listen to what the people want, sadly they rarely do as 'they know better'.
I don't agree it is too left wing at all and I think a 40% vote share shows this. A you gov poll just before the election suggested that 40% of respondents thought Corbyn unelectable due to his past IRA links. That is a huge number to overcome and there is a whole generation that hates him. He has shown the labour party that platform is potentially electable under a different leader.
Answering a question on Corbyn and the IRA doesn't mean that aside you would vote for everything else or someone else with the same policies.
I'm banking on one more year of tax cuts for the rich and then another election, Corbyn gets in, my daughter gets free uni education and I can retire on an enhanced state pension
No, but come on mate the conservatives knew what they were doing. With FPTP you only need 30% of the vote and they have just wiped out 40% of the pool. The policies have polled well for months, normally a majority in favour, long before the election was called. They only lost popularity when Corbyn's name was attached to it.
I just meant because someone said they wouldn't vote for Corbyn due to 'X' doesn't mean they would vote for a different person with the same manifesto. The flip side works, just look on here the support for Corbyn and allegedly all around the country. One could argue if he goes the labour vote would. E dramatically worse?
I agree it is no guarantee, but the policies were populist long before the election. This is about direction and what the labour party thought was electable rather than the leader and trust within that individual. To be elected the Labour party will always have to find an individual that is charismatic and trusted by the public as increasingly it decides elections, especially as FPTP can be so cynically exploited.
People keep talking about how Blair made Labour electable in the 90's but that was the 90's and that was how Labour need to change then. I disagree fundamentally with you about how elections will revert back to low turn outs in certain demographics, even. This is the election they can turn to and say that youth and the disaffected actually made a difference. They stopped a Tory majority much like the Valley party lost Labour seats. Moving forward voter registration/turn-out is key and the left have already realised this at this election.
Blair was needed at the time, Corbyn in many ways is what we needed now. I think he shall ever remain one of my favourite politicians, not because he is the most inspiring or competent, but because he has humanised politics again. Here is a genuine, thoughtful, principled man, everything we should look for in our leaders. You might not agree with him but you actually know what he believes in. He has also shown people you can engage the disaffected and the young in politics if act in manner for the people, something most of the house has forgotten.
Totally agree on the young, having worked with young adults most of my own adult life it's always disappointed me how disengaged they are (to be fair, so was I aged 18, 26 years ago). We'll see if they stay engaged.
My daughter was just slightly too young to vote much to her annoyance, but a lot of her peers weren't and certainly did vote. They debated the election a lot at school, her form of 27, 25 said they were (or if they could) would vote Labour and the vast majority simply because of the no Uni fee's point as it was pretty much the only thing that they felt would effect them.
Great to see the Young getting involved - maybe a bit of a worry the bit about engaging wit No Uni Fees as that would be the only bit that affected them. I realice it's a bit of a generalisation on your part, but for me, therin lies the rub with recent elections. People's horizons seem to have narrowed to a point where they don't worry about hospitals until they need an operation, don't need schools till they have kids etc. Only the old break the spell, by being frantically concerned we should be able to nuke other countries at will.
Now is a good time for everyone (I mean parties, journalists and voters) to reflect on what we all, obviously got wrong. Because no-one could have predicted exactly what happened and there's no point in anyone looking at the result and saying "my side got it right". Each party must change at least part of its offer.
Here's two examples of where we all got it at least a bit wrong.
1. Despite "the left" (whatever that is) thinking that the election would be won by the party with the most attractive manifesto, the Conservatives still won the most votes and most seats and we still have a Tory Prime Minister.
2. Despite "the right" assuming that Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott would be electoral liabilities, these two are now the most popular constituency MPs in history.
Every party has changes to make. How soon? Very. How much? I have no idea!
Mate I watched it I was waiting for his answer to tell me what taxes he is reducing to counter that for me and there was no answer of any merit
The biggest fear for me and many of the other people I meet through the small business forums and entrepreneural forums that were attended by all three parties over the last year to discuss what help would be on offer and not one party offered any hope other than keeping the corporation rate down
If labour came in the only thing we could do would be to cut costs = lay people off Increase charges that if your customers accepted would result in people paying more at the till for items
If and it's a big If they had chosen in a few of their policies to means test who should be impacted and made it truly fairer then the swing wouldn't be that hard to make
Take the free child care announcement I'd love that for anyone who is working or training to work not just anyone being granted it
Corp tax rise was a killer for me it equated to a Huge amount of money to have to find
Canx all uni fees yet again no not everyone means test it and then offer it to those who truly can't afford it
Ok mate, but I heard different then......
The problem with the whole election was that there was not enough clarity
Sorry mate Im not having that....at least not from the Labour side....
It shows it to be true though mate , your telling me that the labour government would've offered me something to counter the corp tax rise yet I never heard about it ,
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
I'm very fortunate to be in that top 1% and I've got away with the square root of f*ck all over the years. Every single penny due in tax has been paid, and always on time. It's the top 0.0000000001% that have creative accountants - the super rich. Good luck in getting anything more out of them.
Mate I watched it I was waiting for his answer to tell me what taxes he is reducing to counter that for me and there was no answer of any merit
The biggest fear for me and many of the other people I meet through the small business forums and entrepreneural forums that were attended by all three parties over the last year to discuss what help would be on offer and not one party offered any hope other than keeping the corporation rate down
If labour came in the only thing we could do would be to cut costs = lay people off Increase charges that if your customers accepted would result in people paying more at the till for items
If and it's a big If they had chosen in a few of their policies to means test who should be impacted and made it truly fairer then the swing wouldn't be that hard to make
Take the free child care announcement I'd love that for anyone who is working or training to work not just anyone being granted it
Corp tax rise was a killer for me it equated to a Huge amount of money to have to find
Canx all uni fees yet again no not everyone means test it and then offer it to those who truly can't afford it
Ok mate, but I heard different then......
The problem with the whole election was that there was not enough clarity
Sorry mate Im not having that....at least not from the Labour side....
It shows it to be true though mate , your telling me that the labour government would've offered me something to counter the corp tax rise yet I never heard about it ,
Corp tax is just on profits mate, stop being so greedy and spend more cash. ;-)
One reason this result is good is the electorate haven't validated any Tory sense of entitlement. Although Theresa may is carrying on as if they did. Anybody know for sure when the next PMQ's will be?
Will freely admit I'm neither educated nor particularly intelligent, so looking to take on board the views of others.
Where it comes to socialism, and the strapline 'for the many not the few' (which I think people massively bought into), isn't the fact that unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1975 not the best possible aspect of providing a platform and opportunities for all?
The Labour party needs to get some centrist players into the fold.
Agree.
How labour move forward from this is massive. No infighting and the centrist power players uniting under corbyn could see real force.
Unfortunately, the centrists turned their backs on corbyn during the repeated lynchings and I think this will not go unpunished.
But Corbyn is far left and that is what rising numbers of people are apparently voting for, so why should they change?
What's all this 'far left' bit, please? How about a reaction to the utter shit that we have endured for decades? Let's call it 'Socialism' and explore its benefits. Why couch Corbyn and Co. in negatives? Accentuate the positives; they are numerous. Don't bleat 'What are they, then?' The path, and the 'answers' are obvious.
You can term it how you like, far left or socialism. But It's not centre and it's not right so it's somewhere left!
I think we are in danger of getting away with ourselves especially if you are comparing this result to the last couple of decades. The actual election process has been really interesting, fantastic that the younger voters seem to be engaged and have turned out, a massive plus and probably were key to how the vote ended.
But we need to put results in perspective rather than just how they have improved or worsened since an election 2 years ago which was a disaster for Labour and the Lib Dems, fantastic for SNP and UKIP (in vote count if not in seats) and pretty good for Conservatives as it gave them an increase to take them to a majority.
So Labour has roughly the same number of seats as it had in 2010 which was cited a disaster at the time, yet this time around it's the second coming, a wave of change, a new movement etc etc. Still nearly 60 short of the Conservatives and still less than they had in 1992.
Conservatives have managed to screw up compared to where they were but still have more seats than they did in 2010 under the last coalition and more than any other election pre 2015 since 1992.
I think we are getting caught up in the moment of May royally screwing up and Corbyn doing considerably better than expected rather than the actual picture/political landscape.
Labour still have nearly 100 less seats than in 2005 when they were last in power. Corbyn has been a success compared to where he was and May a failure (from where she was), but Labour are still massively short of being anywhere near being an elected government and I don't think that will change under Corbyn, he's simply too far left (or socialist!).
So I'm sure Labour are patting themselves on the back of a job well done, and probably rightly so, but don't kid yourself that this is some kind of landmark moment that will change the next 20 years. Charlton finished 13th in the table when it looked for a long time it could be 19th or worse, does that make last season a roaring success because of an improvement at the end? Or did it simply end better than what many of us expected.......?
Those figures are very telling. I remember being 10 years old in 1992 and just about old enough to pick up on my mum's side of the family being anti Tory because of things like poll tax and a general view that Thatcher wasn't a nice woman etc (that's my upbringing anyway). I sort of sensed the disappointment when the Tories got in again but they knew Thatcher had to go because she'd run her course etc
Then if you look at the 1997 figure when the Tories dropped to 165, the nation obviously felt the same and they were done
Fast forward to 2010 and it's the other way round. Blair/brown dead in the water because people are fed up of them.
As you get older you realise it's cyclical (to an extent). The Tories getting a pasting because they're the party in power since 2010
Some of the older members on here probably see it as a basketball match. You score then we score
"Labour voters just want free stuff" is incredibly condescending. Sure, that free tutition pledge was inviting (not that I'll benefit personally) but it was incredibly far down my list of reasons for voting Corbyn behind:
-restoring some dignity into the nhs -getting extra police out on our streets -getting the richest to pay a fair share -renationalising industries so the profit comes back to the taxpayer -retentition of the triple lock
I'm sure there's more but that's off the top of my head.
Genuine question,
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
I think what Labour set out was about right. 80k and above.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
It's lucky that a chunk of these people use some of their income towards private healthcare thus relieving the pressure on the NHS isn't it?
I would imagine that is a completely insignificant amount when compared to the nation as a whole.
Not in the context of the 5% it's not.
Look at £80k+ jobs in London, and you'll see private healthcare offered with quite a surprising amount of them. Although this wont be paid directly by the individual, it will be taxed as a Benefit In Kind for National Insurance purposes, and it obviously reduces strain on the NHS at the same time.
Mate I watched it I was waiting for his answer to tell me what taxes he is reducing to counter that for me and there was no answer of any merit
The biggest fear for me and many of the other people I meet through the small business forums and entrepreneural forums that were attended by all three parties over the last year to discuss what help would be on offer and not one party offered any hope other than keeping the corporation rate down
If labour came in the only thing we could do would be to cut costs = lay people off Increase charges that if your customers accepted would result in people paying more at the till for items
If and it's a big If they had chosen in a few of their policies to means test who should be impacted and made it truly fairer then the swing wouldn't be that hard to make
Take the free child care announcement I'd love that for anyone who is working or training to work not just anyone being granted it
Corp tax rise was a killer for me it equated to a Huge amount of money to have to find
Canx all uni fees yet again no not everyone means test it and then offer it to those who truly can't afford it
Ok mate, but I heard different then......
The problem with the whole election was that there was not enough clarity
Sorry mate Im not having that....at least not from the Labour side....
It shows it to be true though mate , your telling me that the labour government would've offered me something to counter the corp tax rise yet I never heard about it ,
Corp tax is just on profits mate, stop being so greedy and spend more cash. ;-)
Too busy trying to keep them just on the minimum wage so I get even more
Comments
At what level do you place 'the richest' and what do you feel is a fair share?
But no she shit herself at any face to face she was Shown as a really weak leader cowardly i lost faith in her long before the election
I told my mrs it was a shit call and not needed and as soon as she did she came out with two shit propositions the fox hunting and social care
If she would've attacked the manefesto and made more about the inheritance tax plans the corporation tax and picked holes in every other aspect of the great labour give away she would have not lost this amount of seats she is totally to blame I was incredulous with rage at 4 am this morning I didn't get home till 1 am went to bed royally pissed off at the mistakes she had made that by 4 am I was back on way to Wembley
Someone better quickly tell the Tories that they accidentally started introducing Jezza's policies without him knowing before we went to the poll.
By no means am I lumping those people in with the very richest, that's reserved for the top 1% or fewer who have got away with it for years.
I don't think it was unreasonable to ask those on 80k and above to pay a couple hundred quid a year more in tax so we don't have a food bank crisis and we don't have little kids sleeping on chairs as a makeshift beds in the NHS.
"Labour plans to increase the main rate of corporation tax, reaching 26 per cent by 2020-21, but to reintroduce the ‘small profits rate’ for small businesses. This would apply to companies with annual profits below £300k and would be set at 20%, rising to 21% in 2020-21."
As you say Labour celebrating ecstatically is akin to Charlton fans doing the same for ending up 13th.
It's hard to imagine the Tories could be so complacent & poor next time.
If they put together a properly costed manifesto.
Take out/improve the vote losers such as, the so called "dementia tax", put more police on the streets etc, they could well get a majority next time.
Having said that I acknowledge anything could happen.
I dread to think how much worse things would've got with five more Tory years - no Brexit deal, dementia tax for the old, housing crisis for the young, continual public spending cuts... The vote yesterday stopped the nasty party dead in their tracks.
To use your list, and none of these were part of my reason for voting against the chap obviously, I had a few of my own:
On Tuition
There's a certain amount of irony in the free tuition - without means testing - when it would directly benefit those better off. The statistics show that the level of fees doesn't actually affect participation from poorer communities; see the Higher Education rates of Scotland vs England for a good testament to that.
On the NHS
The NHS needs to be protected, and I'll begrudgingly accept that on face value the Labour party provide better connotations for it. Alas, real questions could be asked over the number of £30k+ middle managers, £40k+ diversity managers*, and so on. I can't comment directly as I don't work in the NHS, I've worked with ex-NHS staff so can only go on what I've heard.
I would rather improve cost efficiency by restructuring where possible than throwing more money at an inefficient system; so I think there is a real balance to be had here. Increase funding, but don't be scared of the dreaded "cut" word.
*Would a party who campaigned on the terms of "Unlocking the potential of ethnic minorities" - something I've only seen ethnic minorities kick off over - really remove such positions?
On the Police
Similar to the NHS I can't speak with direct insight, albeit only friends and family who are in the police. It's fine having the proper numbers if they're properly resourced and supported, the sentiment is that this would not happen.
Simply put, look at Diane Abbott's voting history and consider her outspoken views; would you have felt her responsible to preside over the police? She's gone now, but she would've been in charge of policing until Wednesday. Do I need to highlight her silly Twitter exchange - and the numerous police responses - over spit-hoods? Anecdotally, from officers that have liaised with her in her borough, I understand she's generally treated them with distain.
On the Rich
The richest is such a subjective term; and I believe the figure banded about - the top 5% (or £80k+) was genuinely misguided. Too small a percentage to effect real tax receipt changes, and too low a threshold to really hit those with the money to spare. Not to mention - this does nothing for the majority of the really "rich" who have far better ways of accessing their money than via their PAYE income. Starting with the £500 p/day contractors on £12k annual salaries and continuing from there. (Worth noting that Tory policy had a lot of these chaps quite worried though.)
It's also worth that with regards to Corp Tax, tax receipts were higher with a lower rate.
It's also difficult to ignore some of the work the Conservatives have done on bringing the poorest up a notch, especially with regards to an increased personal allowance.
Renationalising Industry
With him on renationalising infrastructure - including public transport. The rail network is the prime example of what happens when you put profit over performance, and the resulting effect it has on the public. (And arguably, the economy via public productivity and morale.)
I agree it is no guarantee, but the policies were populist long before the election. This is about direction and what the labour party thought was electable rather than the leader and trust within that individual. To be elected the Labour party will always have to find an individual that is charismatic and trusted by the public as increasingly it decides elections, especially as FPTP can be so cynically exploited.
People keep talking about how Blair made Labour electable in the 90's but that was the 90's and that was how Labour need to change then. I disagree fundamentally with you about how elections will revert back to low turn outs in certain demographics, even. This is the election they can turn to and say that youth and the disaffected actually made a difference. They stopped a Tory majority much like the Valley party lost Labour seats. Moving forward voter registration/turn-out is key and the left have already realised this at this election.
Blair was needed at the time, Corbyn in many ways is what we needed now. I think he shall ever remain one of my favourite politicians, not because he is the most inspiring or competent, but because he has humanised politics again. Here is a genuine, thoughtful, principled man, everything we should look for in our leaders. You might not agree with him but you actually know what he believes in. He has also shown people you can engage the disaffected and the young in politics if act in manner for the people, something most of the house has forgotten.
Totally agree on the young, having worked with young adults most of my own adult life it's always disappointed me how disengaged they are (to be fair, so was I aged 18, 26 years ago). We'll see if they stay engaged.
My daughter was just slightly too young to vote much to her annoyance, but a lot of her peers weren't and certainly did vote. They debated the election a lot at school, her form of 27, 25 said they were (or if they could) would vote Labour and the vast majority simply because of the no Uni fee's point as it was pretty much the only thing that they felt would effect them.
Great to see the Young getting involved - maybe a bit of a worry the bit about engaging wit No Uni Fees as that would be the only bit that affected them. I realice it's a bit of a generalisation on your part, but for me, therin lies the rub with recent elections. People's horizons seem to have narrowed to a point where they don't worry about hospitals until they need an operation, don't need schools till they have kids etc. Only the old break the spell, by being frantically concerned we should be able to nuke other countries at will.
Here's two examples of where we all got it at least a bit wrong.
1. Despite "the left" (whatever that is) thinking that the election would be won by the party with the most attractive manifesto, the Conservatives still won the most votes and most seats and we still have a Tory Prime Minister.
2. Despite "the right" assuming that Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott would be electoral liabilities, these two are now the most popular constituency MPs in history.
Every party has changes to make. How soon? Very. How much? I have no idea!
Although Theresa may is carrying on as if they did.
Anybody know for sure when the next PMQ's will be?
Then if you look at the 1997 figure when the Tories dropped to 165, the nation obviously felt the same and they were done
Fast forward to 2010 and it's the other way round. Blair/brown dead in the water because people are fed up of them.
As you get older you realise it's cyclical (to an extent). The Tories getting a pasting because they're the party in power since 2010
Some of the older members on here probably see it as a basketball match. You score then we score
Look at £80k+ jobs in London, and you'll see private healthcare offered with quite a surprising amount of them. Although this wont be paid directly by the individual, it will be taxed as a Benefit In Kind for National Insurance purposes, and it obviously reduces strain on the NHS at the same time.