The waspi thing is in the manifesto.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
The waspi thing is in the manifesto.
Ah seems we have quite the Sherlock Homes here. Why did you give shit in the first place ? Why didn't you just wait until there is more evidence rather than framing the whole event as some sort of liberal conspiracy.
I'm using your view on that event as an example of how your in it just for the lulz('just threw some coins at them being' another).
In fairness your right that I'm pretty bitter at the moment. This morning I was standing in the train station while an old lady in her 60's were sitting outside in freezing cold selling the big issue(She looked shocked that I gave her a extra quid for the newspaper), it's really ruined my mood and patience for people who's only form of politics is annoying the piss out of people who read the guardian.
But his media appearances are more often than not him making a complete arse of himself or insulting specific races and religions. If that's what is (at least somewhat) needed in order to be a success in England then deary me.
The older generation are far more susceptible to being taken advantage of than any other demographic of voting age. It's just a fact of life, really, and it isn't exclusive to politics.
I believe the WASPI thing is in the Labour manifesto but can't confirm as I haven't personally read the manifesto.
Also, me saying that older voters are less likely to research and fact check online isn't equivalent to Labour introducing policies that appeal to the younger voter ergo being a bribe.
If it helps at all I'll probably be voting Labour anyway. In a safe SNP seat so it'll be meaningless, but meh.
Johnson has both covered, guy couldn't even answer a question about him being relatable.
Eh?! Boris is very relatable. He's got about twenty or so kids that he's related to.Johnson has both covered, guy couldn't even answer a question about him being relatable.
I don't think it is fair to say that, this is what is in the manifesto:
"Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty and a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans – with sometimes devastating personal consequences. Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered."
It also isn't costed in the grey book, so was definitely a reaction rather than something planned.
1 week to go. Any chance we don’t end up with a Tory majority 
The fact the pound has been strengthening over the last few days suggests the markets are anticipating a decent Tory win.1 week to go. Any chance we don’t end up with a Tory majority
But you never know...
There’s a chance.1 week to go. Any chance we don’t end up with a Tory majority
Martin Wolf’s piece in the FT is more or less what I wish some party was offering us.
How to reform today’s rigged capitalism
We must address weakened competition, feeble productivity growth, high inequality and degraded democracy
https://amp.ft.com/content/4cf2d6ee-14f5-11ea-8d73-6303645ac406
How to reform today’s rigged capitalism
We must address weakened competition, feeble productivity growth, high inequality and degraded democracy
https://amp.ft.com/content/4cf2d6ee-14f5-11ea-8d73-6303645ac406
the waspi thing definitely wasn’t. The IMF were particularly annoyed that it wasn’t planned or costed for. Andrew neal had to ask Corbyn about 5 times how he intended to pay for it, to which he eventually replied ‘borrowing’.
in fairness it depends what you mean by old, but I’d suggest That a good portion of people in the 60’s and 70’s go online (not that it’s some infallible measure of intellect’ it’s certainly just not true that young Are more informed either. It’s a different perspective sure, but one built from experience.
60% of people in my office are in there 20’s and id say most have almost no interest in politics and certainly couldn’t tell you specifics on the policies. It’s just not an old or young thing.
I dont understand the Waspi pledge at all. At over £11bn per year it's the most expensive pledge Labour have made (second was the creation of a National Care Service at £10.8bn per year) and yet they didn't include it in the costings. Did they forget? Or was it done on purpose? From my own point of view I'm no deficit hawk, it doesn't bother me if our Government runs a reasonable deficit. I'm just intrigued as to why it wasn't included in the first place.
Putting these together so as not to clog up the page. I refer back to my original point that there is too much in this thread of just simply stating what you believe to be true, and then getting angry if people disagree. As a country we should be doing better than both Johnson and Corbyn, but I believe them both to be well intentioned and doing that they think to be best.
Why do I prefer Johnson? I think that Corbyn's policies would hurt everyone in the long run, especially the poor. Its a boring Tory line but it is still true, the economy has to be performing well in order for us to be able to fund social services of any kind. I believe that Corbyn's policies would greatly harm our economy and while poor people may do better for the first 5 years people would be suffering for 30 years after that.
So you think freezing all taxes for 5 years and reducing corporation tax whilst putting the UK through a hard Brexit is going to be less damaging than a modern social democracy?
Ok then.
What has Johnson done to deserve this credit? Is he not totally focused upon getting and keeping the top job, whatever it takes?
Again, on what do you base this?
Do you remember when the tories would wipe out the deficit by 2013? They have no clue about running our economy other than to sell off assets for short term gains. We need to invest in this country again. Any money spent on infrastructure/nhs/education is not a loss. There is a net benefit to investing in people who might otherwise become a burden on the state.
Who is on the debate tomorrow everyone? Boris and Corbyn?
I’m really confused as to how people can say that the tories are the party who will look after us financially, our national debt has more than doubled under them when in 2010 that was the huge stick they used to batter labour with.
I see far more homelessness than ever before, and even our national life expectancy has dropped for the first time ever. I honestly don’t know how anyone can say they’ve done a great job and we want more of this. Fine maybe you think labour are damaging but surely you’d at least consider Lib Dem at this stage?
I see far more homelessness than ever before, and even our national life expectancy has dropped for the first time ever. I honestly don’t know how anyone can say they’ve done a great job and we want more of this. Fine maybe you think labour are damaging but surely you’d at least consider Lib Dem at this stage?
i hope so ... they can grill him on this which has been released today
https://www.scribd.com/document/438372031/Redacted-JLM-Closing-Submission-to-the-EHRC#from_embed
The redacted version of the Jewish Labour Movements submission to the EHRC
Most people are selfish and will vote that way. Plus it doesn't help when you are constantly fed the narrative that you will lose all your assets under a Labour government.
A weak Labour government (i.e. in a coalition, or a <15 seat majority) would be almost exactly what's described there. A Lib-Dem/ Labour coalition ideally, but it seems as if the SNP would be the more significant coalition partner.
I understand the difference in personalities between this ideal and Corbyn/ McDonnell, but the policy tools wouldn't be far apart, particularly as I really don't believe that any modern Labour government would be able to destroy the market economy that we have today. If, as claimed, you believe that inequality and corporate power are the too main ills in today's society, it seems pretty clear that some kind of Labour government is the best answer to those problems.
Johnson answered the Waspi question really poorly in the first debate after the manifesto had been launched. The WASPI pledge was then a clear attempt to attack a weak spot for him politically. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the original plan to announce a specific pledge of how much they would refund the women.
Great more debates being hijacked by the constant anti semitism questions.
Wonder if the tories will be asked about Russian links and their own islamaphobia problems.
I'm sure you're delighted that anti-semetism is back on the main news again, despite there being no actual news about it. The JLM are openly zionist and have always been anti Corbyn.
Oh, and it's not exactly redacted. Some names and organisations have been blanked out, not really the same thing.
Maybe you are right. But plenty of people I know, including myself, could lose in the short term under a Labour government. But are still happy to vote for them and pay more to see greater equality and future prospects for our kids.
That's a false dichotomy. We already live in a modern social democracy and if there was an option of taking that a little bit further (Blairism) I would vote for that. Corbyn will take us much further.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is ‘blairism’?
The debt has doubled because the Coalition government inherited a massive deficit. If the government had cut further it would have been even more brutal for those on low incomes. The deficit has reduced from £103bn to £25.5 billion. National debt doubling (or more) would have happened under any party.
As I've said previously a lot of the policies have been bad, and I was previously a Lib Dem member. However I think Brexit will be a very good thing for the country in the long run, and the Lib Dems have turned into the remain party.
Being focused on improving the minimum level of public service offered, while also supporting the private sector. Being relaxed about inequality as long as society is dynamic (you can be born poor and become rich, and vice versa). Belief that public services should be continuously reformed so as to benefit the consumer, not those doing the providing.
I don't think he answered it poorly at all, it is actually one of the few direct answers he has given in this campaign.
Can't watch the clip here, but I thought the reaction at the time was that the attack from the woman who asked the question, followed by Boris' reaction vs. other parties left him looking potentially weak in that area. Again, which was the catalyst for Labour announcing the specific policy vs. their prior plan.
From wikipedia:
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy."
So no, Britain is not a social democracy, certainly not a modern one. No real social democracy allows for zero hour contracts, the housing problem, the homelessness problem, the infrastructure problems, the widespread poverty, I could go on but I think you get the point.
So you fell for the tory line of comparing a household budget to that of the national economy. There was and is a choice. To invest in slow times, when interest rates are low, to pull your economy up to eliminate the deficit. Or to cut services. The tories claimed their plan would eliminate the deficit in just a few years. Nine years later and they have finally realised that they were wrong. But you still think they did the right thing?
I think that is a fair definition so we can have a debate about what the words mean but I don't think it wold be that interesting.
Then maybe it wouldn’t have been sensible to say they’d have wiped debt by 2014 then?
I thought the debt has gone form just under a trillion to now over 2 trillion? I am happy to be corrected.
Well, what do you think social justice means? For me it means looking after the most vulnerable in society, the Tories, as you know, have done the opposite.
I think they definitely did the right thing in cutting back state welfare, it was at a level that we couldn't afford. I do however agree with you that there should have been much more investment alongside that in building new railways, schools, hospitals etc. I think we could even have done some people's QE and had a time limited basic income while the cuts were ongoing. But some measure of austerity still had to happen as post financial crisis we were a much poorer country than we thought we were.
- Status