2024 UK general election predictions and general discussion.

[Dave]

I struggle with the idea that 'far better' is putting someone who doesn't believe people in receipt of benefits even deserve even the impression of political representation, never mind actually get it, in charge of the country's economic policy for five years with a Robert Mugabe level majority.

Labour are appalling, from trans rights, to disabled and otherwise vulnerable people, to the NHS, to Gaza. They are little more than rancid.

The idea that the answer is to vote for them and then hold them to account when a) they won't need to listen to you for five years and no opposition would be able to stop them and b) they'll have tangible evidence that ignoring you will just lead to you voting for them when the time comes, is absurd to the point of being frankly insulting.

You have made all those points without evidence and whenever you present evidence you almost always only have half the facts which makes me think it comes from some biased source. Labour have never said they believe people on benefits don’t deserve representation, they have no particular policy on disability that is problematic.

I won’t tolerate the concept that opinion beats facts and I will go head to head with you when you are arguing against facts, but if you think Labour are rancid don’t vote for them, not a problem at all, you have to vote with your heart and your head. I think your perspective is one that when others have done so (including myself when I was younger) led to ushering in a party that kills people, I won’t ever make that mistake again. If you disagree with that then fine, that’s the game when it comes to political debate.

 

[Benzin]

Yes because he'll actually be Health Secretary on July 5th, unlike his Tory counterpart.

In the last 10 years we've had Jeremy Hunt, Matt Hancock, Sajid Javid, Steve Barclay & Therese Coffey. Current one I've no idea who she is but they've only been in the role since Nov last year.

He can't be worse than any of them.

 

[Dobba]

You have made all those points without evidence and whenever you present evidence you almost always only have half the facts which makes me think it comes from some biased source. Labour have never said they believe people on benefits don’t deserve representation, they have no particular policy on disability that is problematic.

I won’t tolerate the concept that opinion beats facts and I will go head to head with you when you are arguing against facts, but if you think Labour are rancid don’t vote for them, not a problem at all, you have to vote with your heart and your head. I think your perspective is one that when others have done so (including myself when I was younger) led to ushering in a party that kills people, I won’t ever make that mistake again. If you disagree with that then fine, that’s the game when it comes to political debate.

Except when would be Chancellor Rachel Reeves did obviously, whilst also saying she'd be tougher than the Tories on welfare. Don't worry though, she only did it when caring about those people was supposedly her entire portfolio.

But something something, half the facts, something something biased source, I'm sure.

 

[rob666]

Seats are all that matter under FPTP.

Exactly!
The Liberals get crapped on all the more...always have under the current system.
Sadly, the Tories will be back, they have been here before.
The liberals will remain thir, until the greens eventually become the third party...with few seats.

 

[Dave]

Except when would be Chancellor Rachel Reeves did obviously, whilst also saying she'd be tougher than the Tories on welfare. Don't worry though, she only did it when caring about those people was supposedly her entire portfolio.

But something something, half the facts, something something biased source, I'm sure.

Go on link the quote, I suspect you are mis-quoting the line “she will be tough on the benefits bill” rather than she will be tough on the people on welfare. She has also said she will be tough on tax avoiders.

Putting aside Labour have said they will abolish the bedroom tax which massively impacts disabled people and said they will invest in getting jobs for people who can work but struggle to get employment.

Something something half the facts something.

 

[cloudburster]

.

 

[Dobba]

Go on link the quote, I suspect you are mis-quoting the line “she will be tough on the benefits bill” rather than she will be tough on the people on welfare. She has also said she will be tough on tax avoiders.

Putting aside Labour have said they will abolish the bedroom tax which massively impacts disabled people and said they will invest in getting jobs for people who can work but struggle to get employment.

Something something half the facts something.

I'll borrow a phrase and ask for that quote please, because the last I heard Reeves was fobbing aside this question by saying the policy would be set out closer to the election campaign.



They were less vague on the two child benefit cap though, that's staying in place.

 

[rob666]

They were less vague on the two child benefit cap though, that's staying in place.

Mainly because two thirds of voters thought it was a good idea generally, wasn't it?
I have known a number of benefits breeders, one who managed eight children in a line to avoid working...she freely admitted it.
There used to be many such cases, sadly.
I used to pick up the pieces.

 

[cloudburster]

Mainly because two thirds of voters thought it was a good idea generally, wasn't it?
I have known a number of benefits breeders, one who managed eight children in a line to avoid working...she freely admitted it.
There used to be many such cases, sadly.
I used to pick up the pieces.

Labour plans to cut benefits bill by reducing NHS backlog

Rachel Reeves said that 'if people can work they should be in work' as she suggested Labour would not spend more on the welfare system

inews.co.uk

“If people can work they should be in work, and there’s a clue in the name – the Labour party is the party of work and think that work is good for people’s mental and physical health as well as contributing to a strong, secure economy."

Most people would struggle to disagree with that imo.

 

[Benzin]

The quote being discussed was from last year, prior to any knowledge of when the election would take place and when the opposition do not have to set out their stall regarding plans.

The correct answer there would always be to fob off and refer to when they can actually put out a manifesto.

 

[Dobba]

The quote being discussed was from last year, prior to any knowledge of when the election would take place and when the opposition do not have to set out their stall regarding plans.

The correct answer there would always be to fob off and refer to when they can actually put out a manifesto.

Which I don't question.

What I do question is Dave telling me their plans are to 'scrap the bedroom tax' when, as far as I can tell, their position hasn't changed since then. The topic doesn't appear to have come up once since the election was called. Obviously Dave is privy to information that Google and the Starmer Party website isn't

 

[Matt.GC]

Since it's never ever happened in the whole history of democracy, we'll all be waiting a long time to find a party that 100% represents our own political views (which do change as time goes on and are entitled to), whilst still managing to persuade millions of other voters to that very specific ideology in enough numbers to win an election.

Democracy isn't just this simplistic binary choice. It's about sending messages to shape change. I'm most ideologically aligned with the Lib Dems, and I'll happily declare that they had the best manifesto to me in 2010. But I'm so ideologically different to the Conservatives that it made me feel sick to my stomach that for the only occasion in my lifetime I'd participated in helping the Tories gain power. Millions of voters like me also felt betrayed, we sent them a message. No matter what they said in 2015, they could have sung sweet nothings to me, they were taught by the electorate that there's a price to pay for treachery.

I never wanted Corbyn, backed up by his Trotskyist anti-Semitic thugs in Downing Street, but the local Labour candidate was a good guy and I wanted to send a message to the Tories that I despised them even more, but it was the most painful X's I ever put in box's in 2017 and 2019. Had Corbyn stayed on, I'd probably vote Green or for a good Independent candidate.

It's a tough and personal choice. Whether you look at it through the lens of who you like more, or you dislike the least, you have to decide which issues are your red lines and most important to you. I don't particularly like Starmer and Reeve's Diet Tory offering, the stance on Gaza, or this pretence that they're somehow going to improve public servcies with "efficiency savings" and "cracking down on tax avoidance" bull crap talk. But it's the least offensive option to me, and the Labour candidate stands the best chance of getting rid of the Tory MP. Democracy is sacred and I don't understand all this social media fuelled polarisation where people have forgotten how to debate and pretend it's a zero sum game. It never has been. Vote different to me? Absolutely fine if you can articulate why and we can agree to disagree. But so few people seem able to without resorting subscriptive fanatisms.

 

[cloudburster]

Since it's never ever happened in the whole history of democracy, we'll all be waiting a long time to find a party that 100% represents our own political views (which do change as time goes on and are entitled to), whilst still managing to persuade millions of other voters to that very specific ideology in enough numbers to win an election.

Democracy isn't just this simplistic binary choice. It's about sending messages to shape change. I'm most ideologically aligned with the Lib Dems, and I'll happily declare that they had the best manifesto to me in 2010. But I'm so ideologically different to the Conservatives that it made me feel sick to my stomach that for the only occasion in my lifetime I'd participated in helping the Tories gain power. Millions of voters like me also felt betrayed, we sent them a message. No matter what they said in 2015, they could have sung sweet nothings to me, they were taught by the electorate that there's a price to pay for treachery.

I never wanted Corbyn, backed up by his Trotskyist anti-Semitic thugs in Downing Street, but the local Labour candidate was a good guy and I wanted to send a message to the Tories that I despised them even more, but it was the most painful X's I ever put in box's in 2017 and 2019. Had Corbyn stayed on, I'd probably vote Green or for a good Independent candidate.

It's a tough and personal choice. Whether you look at it through the lens of who you like more, or you dislike the least, you have to decide which issues are your red lines and most important to you. I don't particularly like Starmer and Reeve's Diet Tory offering, the stance on Gaza, or this pretence that they're somehow going to improve public servcies with "efficiency savings" and "cracking down on tax avoidance" bull crap talk. But it's the least offensive option to me, and the Labour candidate stands the best chance of getting rid of the Tory MP. Democracy is sacred and I don't understand all this social media fuelled polarisation where people have forgotten how to debate and pretend it's a zero sum game. It never has been. Vote different to me? Absolutely fine if you can articulate why and we can agree to disagree. But so few people seem able to without resorting subscriptive fanatisms.

100% and then some. I feel like since 2016 or so, we've been stuck in this neverending nuanceless void and charade of this v that, black v white, yes v no, leave v remain, vax vs unvax, nemesis vs smiler lol and I think it has taken a few years post-pandemic for us to start to get to grips with nuance once again. Purity politics have always been a thing, will always be a thing, but I think most everyday people are tired of having to dig their heels into one camp or the other.

 

[IanB]

Since it's never ever happened in the whole history of democracy, we'll all be waiting a long time to find a party that 100% represents our own political views (which do change as time goes on and are entitled to), whilst still managing to persuade millions of other voters to that very specific ideology in enough numbers to win an election.

If nobody is happy with the policy, its probably a good one?

But if nobody is happy with the policy, who is going to vote for the party who wants to introduce it?

So you need a policy which will get enough people to vote for it, which is not easy. And you cant just have one policy, so that makes it even more complex. Take in to account the impact the policy could have in the media and how that could have an impact on voters.

If we all listed what are the three most important policy areas for us, I doubt anyone would have the same list.
I think my list would be:
1. School funding - I want schools and teachers to have more resources, so my children can develop to there full potential. Future generations will also benefit
2. NHS - Again, I want the NHS to have the resources it needs so my friends and family get the support and help they need in a timely manner.
3. Europe - I want to re-join the EU, and while no party is going to push this, I would like to vote for a party who is looking to build bridges.

I am not against tax rises, I would be in favour of a Universal Basic Income, I would like to see FPTP scrapped, and to end up with 4 or 5 parties, so you ended up with a coalition party leading(A compromise on the policies been delivered). An elected House of Lords would be good. It might take longer for things to happen, but at least its not one party running off doing its own thing.

Take some of the left policies, take some of the right policies, and you end up with a good balanced mix. As Matt says, no one is happy, but also hopefully no worse off then 5 years ago.

 

[rob666]

Farage.
Milkshake.
Fucking yes.
Not big, not clever, pathetic and immature.
Yes again!

 

[Dave]

Which I don't question.

What I do question is Dave telling me their plans are to 'scrap the bedroom tax' when, as far as I can tell, their position hasn't changed since then. The topic doesn't appear to have come up once since the election was called. Obviously Dave is privy to information that Google and the Starmer Party website isn't

Darling I’m not taking a leaf out of your book by making things up.

It’s been Labour policy to call out the bedroom tax since it was introduced, the SNP did a big piece trying to get them to admit to dropping the policy of opposition to it in 2023 (I’m sure Google told you this) but they didn’t bite.

They may change their mind but they haven’t yet. They did on the 2 child cap (which I think is stupid) but as others have said the majority of the electorate agree with the cap so if we go by the principle of democracy that should remain until the populace have been persuaded of its stupidity (it’s blooming stupid).

 

[Dobba]

Darling I’m not taking a leaf out of your book by making things up.

It’s been Labour policy to call out the bedroom tax since it was introduced, the SNP did a big piece trying to get them to admit to dropping the policy of opposition to it in 2023 (I’m sure Google told you this) but they didn’t bite.

They may change their mind but they haven’t yet. They did on the 2 child cap (which I think is stupid) but as others have said the majority of the electorate agree with the cap so if we go by the principle of democracy that should remain until the populace have been persuaded of its stupidity (it’s blooming stupid).

Calling it out is a big ol' leap away from the policy being to abolish it, Dave. You know, the policy you just completely made up?

The biggest difference being that you can actually prove the former.

 

[cloudburster]

Farage.
Milkshake.
Fucking yes.
Not big, not clever, pathetic and immature.
Fucking yes again!

I personally don't think anyone should be throwing anything at politicians, public figures, or anyone really. To celebrate it happening to people we don't like permits folk to do it to the people we do like. I would like to point out that otherwise, I find Nige repugnant in every way. *edit, tho understood you said not big, not clever, pathetic and immature!

 

[rob666]

Oh I know all that, but all the same...stuff the morality police, bring on the custard pies next for me.
The serious matter is this...banana or vanilla?
I think we should be told.

 

[shakey]

Oh I know all that, but all the same...stuff the morality police, bring on the custard pies next for me.
The serious matter is this...banana or vanilla?
I think we should be told.

Could do with a few milkshakes chucked over those 2 plonkers on the TV debate tonight.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk