UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

How do you intend to vote in the 2019 General Election if eligible?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 30 4.3%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 73 10.6%

  • DUP

    Votes: 5 0.7%

  • Green

    Votes: 23 3.3%

  • Labour

    Votes: 355 51.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 58 8.4%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 1.3%

  • SNP

    Votes: 19 2.8%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 6 0.9%

  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Other (BNP, Change UK, UUP and anyone else that I have forgotten)

    Votes: 10 1.4%

  • Not voting

    Votes: 57 8.3%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 41 5.9%
  • Total voters
    690
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
sun_tzu said:
83% income tax...
so if lets say your on 104K a year - cracking salary right and yes you have probably had to work hard and do a lot of training and have a lot of responsibility you might be a doctor or something? ... but its 2K a week or £400 a day or £40 an hour... cracking...only your actually getting £6.80 take home
the london living wage is £10.55 per hour - and take of 30% tax and thats £7.39 take home
Im sure you would be bending over backwards to do those extra shifts in A&E knowing that the payment for spending that extra time away from your family is less than the car park attendant... I bet you would feel totally valued for the life and death decisions you were making... so much so you for sure wouldnt want to go and work in america or australia?
Click to expand...

This is one of those times i wish memes were allowed.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Well yeah, they've all got it offshore already so not paying a higher rate of tax isn't much of a worry.
Click to expand...

But the reality is regardless of that.... if you are a billionaire, you live where you want to - either for work or just personal choice. When you have that much money, having a bit more or a bit less is not a significant factor in deciding where you choose to live.
 
I always find it amazing that well off people think they should defend the taxation of the super wealthy. You're not in the same club boys, just because you dislike paying taxes and they dislike paying taxes doesn't make you an aspirational billionare.
 
ZupZup said:
So, a billionaire currently living in the UK... who could already save a lot in tax by moving elsewhere but has clearly chosen not to. Is suddenly going to move away because they have to pay a bit more in tax? Studies have actually shown that most billionaires don't tend to move to pay a bit less tax because in reality, it's fairly negligible to them and where they live is usually based on where they have settled, have family, children etc.
Click to expand...

There are so few of them, and if the amount of tax they pay will be negligible , what's all the fuss about. If what you say was true increasing their tax a bit won't pay for a great deal.

The gilets jaunes in France had a brilliant idea of halving the number of MPs until they realised everyone would be 20p better off a year and the MPs would be so busy they couldn't cope.
 
sun_tzu said:
yeah but corbyn has that nailed down... theres gonna have to be something different between them for the gap to close
Click to expand...
People know Corbyn's campaign. Boris has never had to sell anything as unpopular as Tory policy before. I doubt the Lib Dems will be in quite so good shape once folk get to know Swinson either.
 
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Poll of polls at campaign start has 76 seat majority for Conservatives
With the election now almost certain for 12 December, our monthly poll-of-polls marks the start of the general election campaign. According to the polls, the Conservatives under Boris Johnson have a lead of about 10pc over Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party. A straight translation of that hefty lead into seats gives a predicted Conservative majority of 76 seats, which would be a comfortable victory for the Conservatives.

These figures are an explanation of why the Conservatives think that an election is a good idea for them, and the predicted gains for the Liberal Democrats and the SNP have encouraged those parties to support the election. But do the Conservatives really have a lock on this election, or could it unravel again?

The headline prediction table as at 30 October is:

Party 2017 Votes 2017 Seats Pred Votes Pred Seats
CON 43.5% 318 35.3% 363
LAB 41.0% 262 25.3% 186
LIB 7.6% 12 18.1% 31
Brexit 0.0% 0 11.3% 0
Green 1.7% 1 4.1% 1
SNP 3.1% 35 3.2% 48
PlaidC 0.5% 4 0.7% 3
UKIP 1.9% 0 0.4% 0
Other 0.7% 0 1.7% 0
DUP 10 9
SF 7 7
Alliance 0 1
NI Other 1 1
Prediction based on opinion polls from 01 Oct 2019 to 25 Oct 2019, sampling 11,304 people.
Click to expand...

186... what an absolute boy... on course to decimate labours previous worst post ww2 result of 209

And as a bonus predicted to get the lowest labour vote % in 100 years

Exceeding even my expectations of whats is possible
 
Paul the Wolf said:
There are so few of them, and if the amount of tax they pay will be negligible , what's all the fuss about. If what you say was true increasing their tax a bit won't pay for a great deal.

The gilets jaunes in France had a brilliant idea of halving the number of MPs until they realised everyone would be 20p better off a year and the MPs would be so busy they couldn't cope.
Click to expand...

Negligible to them. Not necessarily negligible when you add it all together for the public purse.

Personally, I'm much less interested in taxing the mega rich... as I would be in fixing a broken system that allows them to accumulate such obscene wealth in the first place... whilst we have people working, yet still in poverty. The poorest would be able to contribute a greater % of the total tax pot if the levels of inequality weren't so ridiculous. Trickle down economics though eh...
 
ZupZup said:
Negligible to them. Not necessarily negligible when you add it all together for the public purse.

Personally, I'm much less interested in taxing the mega rich... as I would be in fixing a broken system that allows them to accumulate such obscene wealth in the first place... whilst we have people working, yet still in poverty. The poorest would be able to contribute a greater % of the total tax pot if the levels of inequality weren't so ridiculous. Trickle down economics though eh...
Click to expand...

But there are what 150 billionaires in the UK with most of their assets abroad.
I am certainly not against everyone paying their fair share of tax and not against increasing tax but there's no easy answer but when tax was so high in the 60s rich people and high earners started leaving the UK.
There has to be a workable solution and so far no-one has come up with one.
 
Sweet Square said:
You do realise you questioned the homeless man living in bin and accepted thats part of ''society'' rather than the fact a tiny amount of people have billions in wealth.

Maybe They Live wasn't just a 80's sci movie after all.
Click to expand...

Just because a topic is sensitive does not mean you shouldn’t question it. I know people who work in this area and unfortunately it is a fact of life that there will always be people who cannot operate in a normal society. That doesn’t mean I don’t care or don’t want to help, I’m just accepting the reality of life.
 
Nobody needs nor deserves to be a billionaire. Every billionaire has acquired their fortune through the exploitation of others, they don’t deserve the money.
 
Sweet Square said:
You do realise you questioned the homeless man living in bin and accepted thats part of ''society'' rather than the fact a tiny amount of people have billions in wealth.

Maybe They Live wasn't just a 80's sci movie after all.
Click to expand...

This is the problem though when wealth is articulated as a finite thing and assuming it therefore needs to be "redistributed". A billionaire having all the money when it could be distributed around to poorer people is of course a seductive argument, but it's a baseless one. Wealth is not finite, it's limitless.

Any system that has been thought of that includes eradicating billionaires, also eradicates huge swathes of wealth with it; resulting in poorer people being poorer also. The question therefore isn't "is it moral for someone to be a billionaire?", but "would eradicating billionaires make poor people wealthier". I've heard no evidence that this is the case and so it seems that people would be happy to eradicate very wealthy people, even if it made people poorer.

Isn't it strange that the more we're being taxed (in literal terms and as a % of GDP), the more poverty we're experiencing? It's almost as if it isn't a simple equation of more tax and spending = less poverty.
 
Hammerfell said:
Nobody needs nor deserves to be a billionaire. Every billionaire has acquired their fortune through the exploitation of others, they don’t deserve the money.
Click to expand...

Nobody needs to. I’m sure there are billionaires out there who deserve it. I’m sure most of the rich hating from the left just comes from jealousy of some sort. Who gives a feck if someone is a billionaire seriously? Congratulations to them! Hopefully they pay their taxes, give to good causes but also fecking enjoy their wealth!
 
Jippy said:
Jo Swinson's 'white males' comment still getting a backlash.

EIKb8AAXYAAdKc0.jpg
I need to stop quoting the DM
Click to expand...

What you need to do is stop reading the DailyFail!
 
finneh said:
This is the problem though when wealth is articulated as a finite thing and assuming it therefore needs to be "redistributed". A billionaire having all the money when it could be distributed around to poorer people is of course a seductive argument, but it's a baseless one. Wealth is not finite, it's limitless.

Any system that has been thought of that includes eradicating billionaires, also eradicates huge swathes of wealth with it; resulting in poorer people being poorer also. The question therefore isn't "is it moral for someone to be a billionaire?", but "would eradicating billionaires make poor people wealthier". I've heard no evidence that this is the case and so it seems that people would be happy to eradicate very wealthy people, even if it made people poorer.

Isn't it strange that the more we're being taxed (in literal terms and as a % of GDP), the more poverty we're experiencing? It's almost as if it isn't a simple equation of more tax and spending = less poverty.
Click to expand...
It isn't capitalism in and of itself. Every single measure of human welfare (life expectancy, birthrates, income per capita, absolute poverty) has improved over time due in no small measure to capitalism. Even in China they allow it to operate. The problem is that unregulated, it causes massive inequality. For me the problem is regulation and embracing a more compassionate approach. It is not, in my view, a case of capitalism has caused poor people and inequality therefore chuck it out for some society leveling regime that fundamentally flies in the face of human nature and will always struggle to contain it.
 
fergieisold said:
Just because a topic is sensitive does not mean you shouldn’t question it. I know people who work in this area and unfortunately it is a fact of life that there will always be people who cannot operate in a normal society. That doesn’t mean I don’t care or don’t want to help, I’m just accepting the reality of life.
Click to expand...
Yet you didn't question the fact there are billionaires ?

Look you are literally making things worse by voting tory

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/01/don-t-believe-tories-homelessness-isn-t-falling

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...may-light-touch-approach-policy-a7942261.html

The number of rough sleepers in the UK has soared by 134 per cent since the Tories took power, new figures show, prompting accusations from the Government spending watchdog that ministers have failed to tackle the problem.

A damning report by the National Audit Office (NAO) revealed that there had been a 60 per cent rise in households in temporary accommodation over the last six years, affecting 120,540 children – 73 per cent more youngsters than were made homeless in March 2011.


An autumn snapshot survey last year recorded 4,134 rough sleepers – marking an increase of 134 per cent since the Tory-led coalition took power in 2010 – while the number of homeless families approaching councils and being assessed as entitled to temporary accommodation rose by 48 per cent to 59,090.

Despite the worsening crisis – branded a “national scandal” by opposition MPs – the Government has continued with a “light touch” approach that cannot be considered value for money, according to the report.


All forms of homelessness have increased “significantly” and are costing more than £1bn a year to deal with, the NAO states, with the ending of private sector tenancies having become the main cause of homelessness in England, showing a threefold increase in numbers since 2010/11.

Government measures are believed to have exacerbated the problem, with the report stating that local housing allowance reforms are “likely to have contributed” to making tenancies for claimants less affordable and “are an element of the increase in homelessness”.
Click to expand...


Even tory minsters can hide away from this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-admits-tory-policies-blame-homelessness-rise

The housing secretary, James Brokenshire, has admitted Conservative policies may be to blame for rising levels of homelessness, appearing to row back on a statement he made earlier this month.
Click to expand...

I know you have to think or say ''well it unfortunate part of life'' etc. As it makes it easier to justify the awful outcomes of your vote(I haven't even mentioned the awful damage aboard) but honestly as someone who stood in line at the dole and watched homeless people being denied the most basics of human interactions, it would be honestly better for everyone if you just admitted that your don't really care that much about the poor.
 
fergieisold said:
Nobody needs to. I’m sure there are billionaires out there who deserve it. I’m sure most of the rich hating from the left just comes from jealousy of some sort. Who gives a feck if someone is a billionaire seriously? Congratulations to them! Hopefully they pay their taxes, give to good causes but also fecking enjoy their wealth!
Click to expand...

It's absolutely nothing to do with jealousy and everything to do with a broken system. The reason the left fixate on wealth is they reflect on the hardship of others rather than dismiss it with nonsense such as....well some can't be helped.

I really hate how the right misconstrue all arguments of wealth. It isn't the politics of envy, people don't want other peoples money. They just want a fair standard of living for all or at least as fair as possible. If people felt such earnings were fair and through hard work then there wouldn't be such a desire to redistribute but no one fairly accumulates such wealth without exploiting the rest of society. Limiting that exploitation has been the travel of direction for quite some time.
 
Last edited:
finneh said:
This is the problem though when wealth is articulated as a finite thing and assuming it therefore needs to be "redistributed". A billionaire having all the money when it could be distributed around to poorer people is of course a seductive argument, but it's a baseless one. Wealth is not finite, it's limitless.

Any system that has been thought of that includes eradicating billionaires, also eradicates huge swathes of wealth with it; resulting in poorer people being poorer also. The question therefore isn't "is it moral for someone to be a billionaire?", but "would eradicating billionaires make poor people wealthier". I've heard no evidence that this is the case and so it seems that people would be happy to eradicate very wealthy people, even if it made people poorer.

Isn't it strange that the more we're being taxed (in literal terms and as a % of GDP), the more poverty we're experiencing? It's almost as if it isn't a simple equation of more tax and spending = less poverty.
Click to expand...
Its not

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/climate-change.446642/page-38#post-24873389
 
Ivor Ballokov said:
Why?
Click to expand...
The same as everyone should have the right to become a doctor, lawyer, prime minister or president. If you cap aspiration then where does it stop? If we say that £1bn should be banned. Why not £100m? Why not £10m? Most people could probably survive quite well on £1m. This is goes against human aspiration. Tax it if you want at but don't say that you're not allowed to get there.
 
sun_tzu said:
83% income tax...
so if lets say your on 104K a year - cracking salary right and yes you have probably had to work hard and do a lot of training and have a lot of responsibility you might be a doctor or something? ... but its 2K a week or £400 a day or £40 an hour... cracking...only your actually getting £6.80 take home
the london living wage is £10.55 per hour - and take of 30% tax and thats £7.39 take home
Im sure you would be bending over backwards to do those extra shifts in A&E knowing that the payment for spending that extra time away from your family is less than the car park attendant... I bet you would feel totally valued for the life and death decisions you were making... so much so you for sure wouldnt want to go and work in america or australia?
Click to expand...

Wait do you actually not know how tax works?
 
finneh said:
This is the problem though when wealth is articulated as a finite thing and assuming it therefore needs to be "redistributed". A billionaire having all the money when it could be distributed around to poorer people is of course a seductive argument, but it's a baseless one. Wealth is not finite, it's limitless.

Any system that has been thought of that includes eradicating billionaires, also eradicates huge swathes of wealth with it; resulting in poorer people being poorer also. The question therefore isn't "is it moral for someone to be a billionaire?", but "would eradicating billionaires make poor people wealthier". I've heard no evidence that this is the case and so it seems that people would be happy to eradicate very wealthy people, even if it made people poorer.

Isn't it strange that the more we're being taxed (in literal terms and as a % of GDP), the more poverty we're experiencing? It's almost as if it isn't a simple equation of more tax and spending = less poverty.
Click to expand...
The correlation not causation fallacy present in your penultimate sentence is extraordinary.

And no, wealth is not limitless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.