BS: UK General Election

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Allan Conn
Date: 06 May 17 - 04:13 AM

It is absurd to suggest that people voting SNP in Scotland are somehow selfish and to blame for the Tory Party ruling in the UK! When was the last time the election results in Scotland made one iota of difference as to who had a majority in the UK parliament? I suspect it must be at least approaching a half century anyway! Surely the rest of the UK are quite adult and fully capable of choosing their government or voting system?

A post up thread also suggests that "the Scottish gvt" gave a commitment that there would not be another referendum for at least a generation. Despite that being oft repeated it is not actually true.

Salmond as First Minister often used the phrase "once in a generation, perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity" when campaigning for a Yes vote. Saying you may not get this chance again is clearly not the same as promising that you won't ask the question again.

On the Andrew Marr show prior to the referendum Marr pressed Salmond as to if that was a commitment! To which Salmond said it was only his 'personal view' that these opportunities don't come along that often. Vote Yes now or you won't get another chance for a while is not a firm commitment to not ask the question again - it is simply a better campaign tactic than saying "never mind if you vote No now you can change your mind in a year or two".

Likewise Sturgeon as deputy leader during the campaign used the same phrase - but when pressed she included the caveat that though it was her belief that there wouldn't be another vote for a while it did not bind future parliaments or generations. Remember people did tend to think that a No vote would seriously dent the SNP. The two leaders probably did think that if they lost then they wouldn't even have the opportunity to ask the question again at least for a while. No-one predicted that on the back of a No vote the popularity of the SNP would increase and that Labour would plummet in Scotland.

When she became leader the Scottish Tories continually pressed Sturgeon as to under what conditions there could be another vote - so in the 2016 election manifesto the SNP laid it out in black and white and it was repeated often. They would only look at another vote if there was a clear and consistent support for independence in the polls (though not in the manifesto Sturgeon had mentioned a figure of perhaps about 60% support) - or if there was a significant material change to Scotland's position within the UK and the example they gave was if Scotland is dragged out of the EU against the will of the Scottish electorate. Now various people on here may not like, or may not agree with that, but the facts are that the Scottish people gave the SNP a massive mandate in that election. So bringing forth the vote at Holyrood was them keeping an electoral promise.

There was no official government commitment not to have another vote - but there was an actual official commitment by the party in their manifesto to have another vote should certain circumstances arise.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 17 - 03:02 AM

....and they talk a lot of waddle!

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 May 17 - 12:20 PM

Taking a penguin out can get very boring...

all they want to do is go to sushi restaurants...

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 May 17 - 11:30 AM

take the penguins out and it soon gets very boring....

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 07:48 PM

..and that's not forgetting the contribution of the selfish Scots Nationalists victory
virtually guaranteeing a perpetual tory domination of our tiny islands...

I can see the risk that it could risk a perpetual Tory domination of Southern Britain, but hardly of "our tiny islands" taken as a whole. Scottish independence would initiallu be likely to involve permanent rule on the basis of a relatively small proportion of votes, but I doubt if that would be accepted permanently by the Southern British public. I think it likely that a Scottish secession would trigger bitter anger among many towards the English party seen as primarily responsible for bringing this about, and demands for constitutional reform.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:50 PM

Then produce facts to contradict what I've said, Teribus. Sarky comments are easy. Evidence is a whole nother issue.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:56 PM

This could be important if it turns out to have substance:

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/04/30/theresa-may-under-investigation-re-brexit-profits/

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:54 PM

Ehmmmm No Shaw my post is not a list of excuses - it largely represents in chronological order a series of facts as opposed to the imagined reasons contained in your rather vapid contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:45 PM

isn't it just being realistic Steve - we can't carry on like this indefinitely?

unless you believe Corbyn can win.

its a bit the ads for the superman movie - you'll believe a man can fly...

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:03 PM

"I thought that's what the Brexit Crusaders blamed OBAMA for and thus favored Trump?"
Go read the latest developments
"if you miss me at the back of the - queue"
When Obama was in charge Britain was still part of Europe
"Now President Putin is one of the most popular leaders ever in Russia."
The most popular leader in Rusdsia was Stalin - by miles
Both were/are POLITICAL THUGS
Hitler was pretty popular
You judge leaders by their records, not their popularity
Jim Carroll

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 02:41 PM

Three Hundred

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 02:02 PM

I should like to remind you of what you are very keen on reminding me about, that we have had a Tory government for just two years. Also, SHE appointed Hammond, and Cameron resigned despite promising that he would stay on even if he lost the referendum, having also vacuously promised to trigger Article 50 the very next day. The Tories andLibDems were the architects of the fixed-term parliament setup which has now been demolished on tbe slightest of opportunist grounds. Your post is a list of excuses. She has called this election so that she'll get, she hopes, a big enough majority of toadies to see off her own right wing. It's all about the Tories and nothing about the best interests of this country. By the way, Labour did a lot of things wrong apropos of the NHS, failing to get to grips with its top-heavy bureaucracy and allowing in creeping privatisation for example, but when they left power there was no massive crisis in A&E departments, no bed-blocking and very little failure to meet 18-week waiting times. By their fruits shall we know them, old chap, but please don't let the facts get in your way on this fine spring day.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:52 PM

and just think it could be one hell of a lot worse if we had Corbyn and Labour in charge

I thought you didn't do speculation, Teribus.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:23 PM

Another blow to Brexit has been Trumps intention to put Europe before the U.K. as far as trade deals.

Now wait just a durn minute, pardner! I thought that's what the Brexit Crusaders blamed OBAMA for and thus favored Trump???

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM

Well, Teribus, what evidence have you got that the Tories will be "strong and stable?"

After the mess left by the last UK Labour government they have taken an economy that was heading down the pan and transformed it into one of the best performing economies in the western world, despite all the "doom'n'gloom" predictions during the recent EU referendum.

"In the last two years they have endured a referendum result that they neither remotely expected nor remotely wanted, having been forced into the vote by their fear of a racist party and their own right wing"

In the last three years they've had to endure two referendums of immense importance and impact on the United Kingdom (Scottish Independence Referendum and the EU Referendum). The former they agreed to on request by the political party governing Scotland - the answer given by the electorate of Scotland was that they wished to remain as part of the United Kingdom, the SNP, the party governing Scotland declared at the time that this was a "once in a generation" referendum but within days of them not getting the result they sought changed their minds on that (Gnome please take note, leaders of all political parties change their minds as and when they deem it necessary). Situation is now that polls strongly indicate that any second Indy Ref in Scotland would result in an even bigger NO vote and that only 1 in 4 want a second Indy Ref. Unfortunately this paints Sturgeon into a corner as she has put the matter before the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood and they voted for a second Indy Ref that they now have to deliver or lose an enormous amount of credibility.

The other referendum on membership of the EU was actually promised the electorate of the UK by Gordon Brown in response to sovereign powers being handed over to Brussels and the EU Commission under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. Didn't come to anything as at least three other EU member states rucked up by voting against it (The French in May 2005, the Dutch in June 2005 and the Irish in June 2008) so the EU Commission in cahoots with the likes of Brown fudged by renaming the Treaty and massaged it into existence via technicalities in 2009. In the 2010 election the Conservatives promised a referendum on EU Membership in their election manifesto, this promise foundered when the Conservatives failed to win an outright majority and had to form a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats who insisted that the EU referendum promise be dropped. There was quite rightly an outcry against this, but the bullet had to be bitten as anything was better than a Labour Government and everyone realised this. In 2015 the promise to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU was in the Conservative Party election manifesto and as they won an overall majority the election promise was honoured and the EU referendum originally promised by Gordon Brown was delivered to the electorate of the UK - no forcing about it. The result of this referendum and the judgement of the electorate of the UK was to LEAVE the EU.

"they have lost their leader in consequence, replaced him with a remainer who has immediately changed her spots"

As the leader of the Government and also leader of the Remain campaign David Cameron had no other alternative apart from resignation when the electorate of the UK voted to leave the EU. The Conservative Party then elected a new leader and made a far better job of it than did the Labour Party in their 2015 leadership election. Irrespective of being a "Remainer" May was considered to be the best leader to carry things forward internationally and domestically by her Party and she honoured the wishes of the electorate to leave the EU by triggering Article 50, which she has successfully done.

totally screwed up the last budget in the clumsiest possible way and cynically inflicted an opportunist election on us only two years into the parliament in spite of being the architects of a fixed-term parliament system only a few short years ago.

Faced with emboldened rebels in her own Party and as you say a "screwed up budget" (Hammond's fault), along with jibes from the SNP at Westminster that she (May) had no personal endorsement or mandate to lead anything May exercised her right to call a General Election and got the backing of Parliament to do so. She did this at a time when all opposition parties are in total chaos - not bad judgement on her part then? Plus all the boxes ticked if the Conservatives win on 9th June, which all those in the know reckon they will:

1 - The tory rebels silenced
2 - The opportunity to sort the budget shambles out by next autumn
3 - "Wee Nippy" up in Edinburgh silenced

On the other stuff?

The NHS has always been "disintegrating", I've never known a time that it wasn't irrespective of how much money or resources are thrown at it. The care system is and has to be part and parcel of this in conjunction with the citizens of this country who believe it or not do have responsibilities to themselves and to their families.

Same goes for education although I think the present government are on the right track.

Oh yes, there are plenty of signs of strength, stability in the vital areas that matter for the country as a whole and just think it could be one hell of a lot worse if we had Corbyn and Labour in charge we'd have been knocking on the door of the IMF months ago. Just off-hand I cannot think of a single Labour policy that has been run out that has the endorsement of the Party as a whole - at the moment they cannot even agree on the usual empty rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 12:15 PM

There is not a scrap of evidence that the Tories deserve the accolade "strong and stable."

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 11:18 AM

Strong and stable like

Being in Europe is the best thing
Oh, hang on...

I am not going to call a general election
Oh, hang on...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 11:07 AM

Mr Putin almost singlehandedly has given the Russian people back a pride in their country.

After the capitulation of the Soviet Union Russia had become a bad joke. Now President Putin is one of the most popular leaders ever in Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 11:06 AM

May beginning to unravel on Marr's programme. Like a good little establishment soldier he tried his best to cover for her. But I hope that people will be beginning to see through her. "Strong and Stable", thats going to come back to bite her on the backside.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 10:50 AM

Another blow to Brexit has been Trumps intention to put Europe before the U.K. as far as trade deals
One of the claimed benefits of a Trump victory was that Britain would benefit rather than Europe - not going to happen.
Strong and stable in the present situation means, as always, that the less well off will have to bera the brunt to keep the better off in the manner to which they have become accustoms
More pie in the sky, in other words
I've never come accross a "socialist" who puts in so much time and effort into defending the wealthy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 10:37 AM

Good article , in my opinion, on whether strong ans stable is desirable and what it means. Your views may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 10:35 AM

give it a rest Ake - you have no more idea of what Brexit will mean than anyone else - and seeing as a tory is bringing it in, watch your arses!

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 10:30 AM

Until Brexit is achieved, strong and stable is what is required.
It is my opinion that at some point we will be forced to walk away and construct new trade deals on a world stage. The sooner the better! pussyfooting around trying to pick the pieces we want will never be allowed by a cartel who are desperate to save their money trough.

Flooding our country with impoverished people to prop up our economy is immoral. We need a new start, a new value system with less emphasis on financial aspiration.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 10:19 AM

Mrs May seems to be the only politician determined to ["fix" the system]

Just like Trump, right? Please.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 09:35 AM

I think, given the events of the last year or so, it would be unwise to say anyone is unelectable. The general public does not like being ordered around and it seems me that there is very strong back - pedalling on the use of the 'strong and stable' slogan. Andrew Marr challenged her on how robotic it makes everyone sound and forced her to defend it. I strongly suspect it won't appear on campaign literature that has still to be printed.

Being miles behind in the polls isnt great, but a gradual narrowing could be an exciting story to tell and an occasional two or three point jump even more so.

Chicken counting before they have hatched is not wise. But you shouldnt assume they are dead either.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 09:07 AM

It isn't so much that there's a section of Labour lamenting "Blairite scum." It's more the problem of those so-called Blairites briefing against Corbyn, refusing to support him or serve in the shadow cabinet and perpetuating a lethal rift in the party. They know the election is probably lost and they want him gone. That's a rotten tactic. They are not playing to win.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 08:57 AM

it makes a lot of difference.
i guess you just have to be in the right places to see the difference.

my wife became disabled out of the blue when she was 26.
the tories do people down at the bottom of society. the labour party - less so.

even when they spend money on a public service - the tories find some way of looting the system, and diverting money away from the frontline - in this way they take care of their backers. fund holding gp's and the national curriculum in schools were great examples of this.

most of my life i have voted for thoroughly decent men... Foot, KInnock, Brown...and now Corbyn. and only Wilson and Blair have had the venality to embrace the realities of the English political system and make it work for the poor people.

that's why i feel nothing but contempt for the forces within the labour party that go on about blairite scum. they are intent on abandoning the poor to the tender mercies of the tories - just for the satisfaction of playing mr. nice guy - offering largesse to everyone in the firm belief that none of their cheques will be cashed, none of their promises held to account.

The present tory policies are some of the most noxious right crap ever to be offered to the electorate. However they have an ace in the hole. A presentable leader.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 08:35 AM

Interesting. Dr Andrew Watt, a retired doctor from Glasgow, is of the opinion that Section 2 of the European Union Act 2011 (a UK law) requires a second referendum on brexit once any deal has been agreed. He's put the matter to Theresa May and will likely start legal action if she responds adversely within the next couple of weeks. I read it in the Indy so google it as I can't do links.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:52 AM

Well, Teribus, what evidence have you got that the Tories will be "strong and stable?" In the last two years they have endured a referendum result that they neither remotely expected nor remotely wanted, having been forced into the vote by their fear of a racist party and their own right wing, they have lost their leader in consequence, replaced him with a remainer who has immediately changed her spots, totally screwed up the last budget in the clumsiest possible way and cynically inflicted an opportunist election on us only two years into the parliament in spite of being the architects of a fixed-term parliament system only a few short years ago. On top of all that they are presiding over the disintegration of the NHS, have devastated school budgets and are utterly clueless about what to do about a care system that's rapidly going to hell in a handcart. Oh yes, plenty of signs of strength, stability and dependability there!

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 06:03 AM

"I think you told us that was the aim last week, jim."
Never mentioned 'opposition' Al
Being there in the present set-up only benefits career politicians
No party is worth anything unless it fights on an alternative to what is happening - sitting on their thumbs and waiting for the next election only perpetuates the system
Unless Corbyn, or whoever, fights on a genuinely alternative policy, they may as well concentrate their energies on reforming the party and getting rid of the dross.
That is the ticket on which Corbyn won the leadership - now he has to make his policies realities.
Today's parliament is little more than an exclusive club - as one of the Ealing comedy characters once said, "it was either that or the church".
I'm rapidly coming around to teh old Anarchist slogan, "Don't vote for any of them - it only encourages them".
Do you really think another Blair, Brown or Wilson - elected or not - will make the slightest difference to the rest of us??
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:16 AM

a wannabe Thatcher...?
wannabe Blair...?

At least those people understood the first rule of the game, which is to get elected.

wanna win three elections...that's a hell of a smear. You could never accuse JC of that. he wants to be a 'principled opposition'...I think you told us that was the aim last week, jim.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

Let's just get this election over with and out the way, struggle through the brexit debacle, say bye bye to Scotland if we must,
then look forward to the next general election;
by which time labour might have regrouped, got some semblance of unity
and demonstrable winning sense of purpose... ???????

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 04:42 AM

What a choice eh...???
More of the same shite tory government..
or an unelectable weakened labour opposition that has been mercilessly undermined, destabilised and marginalised
by persistent poisonous right wing propaganda...

..and that's not forgetting the contribution of the selfish Scots Nationalists victory
virtually guaranteeing a perpetual tory domination of our tiny islands...

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 04:40 AM

There are at least two things wrong with the "strong and stable government". Firstly, as McGrath pointed out, being a strong government may or may not be a good thing for its citizens and the long term future of the country. Every one of us can name at least three strong and stable governments we would want nothing whatsoever to do with. Strength is not a good thing in itself, it is all about what you do with that strength. We may find out when the manifestos are issued, or we may not.

Secondly, when any phrase is used as an alternative to thinking it is extremely dangerous. Blairism was full of such things, and I don't think you will find any defenders of Blair on this forum. We are entering a long period where careful thought is crucial. Many are focusing on the next two years; I would say the 5 years afterwards are probably more important, as we go through the regulations brought under UK law by the Repeal Act and decide which to keep, to modify and to scrap. As my little discussion with Teribus shows, it is dreadfully easy to scrap a regulation because you can see an industry would be better off without it, without being aware that in doing so you inflict a much greater harm on other businesses. We cannot afford to make those kind of mistakes.

So let's try a little thought experiment. May has been absolutely clear that in the case of the EU 'a bad deal for Britain is worse than no deal' and that she will walk away if the deal is bad. Ok, we will take her at her word. She would like a deal with the US. Will she say the same - walk away from a US deal if the terms are not good enough. If she won't say, have no doubt Trump will smell weakness and push. Trump, whatever else he is, is a highly experienced dealmaker and well used to getting his own way. Does anyone at all believe May can force Trump to do anything he is not prepared to do already?

So let's instead assume May is 'strong and stable' enough to walk away because she does not believe the deal in in the UK interests. Great, we have no EU trade deal and no US trade deal. Now everyone else in the world smells our desperation.

As a certain well known figure would put it: Bad!

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 04:01 AM

"If we really want to change...or even try to "fix" the system it is imperative that we remove ourselves from the system's biggest and most undemocratic club."
Britain is now incapable of standing on its own two feet
It has no industry to become self sufficient so Brexit was merely a change of who we would have to rely on.
The decision was taken on a natio/racist myth that foreigners were taking our jobs - the immediate effects were a rapid increase in racists incidents.
Like Ukip - it was a one objective programme.
The oldest ploy of a failing administration is to find a scapegoat - immigrants, and Jews have become favourites.
Get us at each other's throats and they can contiue feathering their own nests without interference.
"Mrs May" is a wannabe Thatcher without the charisma
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:57 AM

You don't really know that ake.
After all she was pro Remain in the referendum.
You'd be crazy to trust a politician for what they're saying this week.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:44 AM

If we really want to change...or even try to "fix" the system it is imperative that we remove ourselves from the system's biggest and most undemocratic club.

Mrs May seems to be the only politician determined to do that, the rest are simply jockeying for scraps of political power, to serve their own agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 03:36 AM

An excellent post Mr McGrath, one which deserves a thread all of its own.

My only reservation is that shifting quotations into different timeframes often be obstructive to debate.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 02:45 AM

"The repeated use of the expression "strong and stable government" in this election is interesting. In fact it's chilling."
Couple this with the rise of the extreme right in Europe and America and you realise we're heading for a new Ice-Age, Brexit being the first floe to move.
Corbyn probably doesn't stand a chance as things are, but there is little value in Labour victory if all we end up with is more of the same.
The system is broken and needs fixing - if it isn't, it's back to political barbarism - the right will have succeeded where Hitler failed and this time they will have the Muslims instead of the Jews as a scapegoat.
"Mussolini and Fascism promised a strong stable government and an end to the political fighting."
Don't think they'll even be able to promise that the trains will run on time, this time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 17 - 01:21 AM

When viewing what the alternative that the likes of Corbyn would cobble together as a "government", I see nothing wrong with the Conservatives persistence in promoting themselves as the only party that can deliver a strong and stable government - nothing sinister in that at all, they are merely stating the truth. Let's face it in almost two years Corbyn hasn't even been able to put together an effective "opposition".

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 10:11 PM

still you can't ban the use of strong and stable - unfair to horses.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 07:14 PM

The repeated use of the expression "strong and stable government" in this election is interesting. In fact it's chilling.

That was the very phrase used in the same repeated way in the rise of fascism, as cited in numerous accounts of that period.

"Mussolini and Fascism promised a strong stable government and an end to the political fighting."

It's also noteworthy that in Mussolini's rhetoric at least there was often far more venom against "liberals" than against Communists - "I know the Communists. I know them because some of them are my children…". "Tomorrow, Fascists and communists, both persecuted by the police, may arrive at an agreement, sinking their differences until the time comes to share the spoils. I realise that though there are no political affinities between us, there are plenty of intellectual affinities."

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 05:04 PM

its mot a sin to vote for transexual penguins....however the   predjudice remains....

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 12:56 PM

Especially for Nigel Parsons -

Poorest pay higher taxes than richest, new figures show

This section confirms exactly what I have been trying to tell you!

Council tax and VAT were found to hit the poorest households particularly hard. Low earners pay an average of seven per cent of their income in council tax while the wealthiest households pay just 1.5 per cent.

A similar trend applies to VAT, on which the poor pay 12.5 per cent of their income while the rich pay five per cent.


See - Not just me :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 12:47 PM

There are lots of ways the voting system could be improved. Back in the days of the alternative vote campaign I pointed to all and sundry that it enabled the Tories to put up a pro and anti EU candidate in the same constituency, the vote would NOT be split because at most one would be eliminated in any round and all votes would go to the other. Solved: the Tories long term EU internal conflict, no need for a referendum and if the people wanted to leave the EU the ordinary election mechanism would arrange it; if not it wouldn't. And nothing hanging on dodgy promises - or no more than a normal election anyway.

Still, it meant the centre didn't keep control of the power (pause for suppressed laughter) so the 'against' campaign decided to go with "it's all too complicated". The 'for' compaign was so incoherent I am not sure what message they were trying for. And so we end up here....

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 12:38 PM

..actually more than 60 years...

She was even a member of some kind of labour youth activist group when she was a teenager
in the town here she's lived in ever since the war...

So if anyone knows anything about futile struggle against the entrenched tories.. that's my old mum.. 😍

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 12:21 PM

I've just had a great idea whilst sat on the bog...

Howsabout a new 21st Century electoral system whereby our individual vote
is no longer confined to the territorial boundaries of our home address constituency...???

Where we can vote online and transfer our vote
to a marginal seat where our favoured party might stand a fair chance of winning..
where every extra vote really would count...!!!

Might shake things up a bit...

Of course, that will never happen.. but we can still dream positive things whilst sat on the crapper..

My mum has voted labour every election for getting on 60 years, and afaik sadly never seen a single win round here in deepest darkest Toryshire..

..even she is wondering whether to bother this time now she's 85...

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 11:36 AM

What this THREAD has to do with homosexuality is what I should have put.

Mea culpa

D.

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 11:35 AM

the Christian Church quite legally defines homosexuality as "wrong"

Depending what you mean by wrong defining homosexuality as such could well be in breech of both equality and hate speech laws. So the Christian church or anyone else are probably not acting legally if that is what they are really saying. I suspect ake has his facts wrong, his knickers in a twist or a mixture of both. But WTF this has to do with homosexuality, apart from ake's preoccupation with anal sex, is beyond me.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: UK General Election
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 17 - 11:23 AM

And they would be? Certainly not of any relevance.