[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

A significant portion of right wing policy has the ultimate aim of making the rich richer.

That's not exactly it. The right wing thinks that people should make money according to their own ability to do so. And if you are bad at making money, then that's your problem - try harder. They hold this principle dear. Now MOST on the right appreciate that some people have trouble with this but they place a higher priority on allowing people to keep their cash than the left do; and they are more likely to let the poor deal with it themselves rather than bail them out and get them dependent on the state.

The upshot of that though is that it does indeed make it easier for the rich to get richer, and the poor do get poorer.

The reaction of many people who aren't already committed to the left is, WTF where's this guy coming from and switch of, the message however good it might be gets lost.

They have switched off long a go. Selfish, prejudiced people with zero empathy don't tend to suddenly change just because they see a good argument against how they have been living.
For example, even in these threads, when direct questions are asked on why right wingers think it is right to punish less fortunate people they don't have much to say.

but they place a higher priority on allowing people to keep their cash than the left do

Well, almost - they certainly place a high priority on the rich keeping their cash and also the cash of poorer people. A recent illustration of this principle in operation was the London garden bridge project - perfectly designed to funnel tax payers' money into private pockets.

Taxi - I understand your point and to be fair have some sympathy. I guess I'm just suggesting it's a two way street. Every time a right wingers uses "lefty" as an insult it tends to make me categorise them and prejudice me against their views. This is one of the reasons there a few people on here could try and suggest the sun rises in the morning and I'd want a secind opinion. (For similar reactions see also use of remoaner, remaniac etc) I just discount their views because they started so badly.
And yes I refer to Brexies.
For what it's worth I probably am a lefty, but you're only allowed to call me that if you're one too.
Why am I a lefty? Because I'm ok under any UK government (within reason) - white, male, well-educated, healthy and reasonable affluent - so I see my contribution being to make sure no one is left behind.
Paternalistic, condescending? Possibly - but better than the more "I'm alright Jack" selfish posture that would lead me to the right.
Do I think right wingers are bad people? No
Do I believe in enlarging the pie as well as dividing it more fairly? Yes
Was Tony Blair a huge disappointment? Well if only he hadn't taken us into an unnecessary war, no, but on balance, yes

Agreed re Tony Blair, probably the best Prime Minister to date if you discount war, PFI , bedroom tax, WCA , Sanctions and the embryonic form of the welfare reforms we see today, and an artificial housing bubble propping up the economy

He did a lot for poverty and particularly child poverty though - just on the stats, it might have happened anyway.
The current bunch have rolled that back.

The right wing thinks that people should make money according to their own ability to do so.

And also groups of people who are just lucky through birth and conditions. That's where it grates for me.

An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries - so although the rich don't want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier.

[quote=ninfan ]You only need to look how so many of them get upset about being disparagingly referred to as 'lefties' to see the hypocrisy in action.

I knew you had trouble with this empathy thing, but didn't realise it was that bad. You appear to be confusing "upset" with "amused" and it's only "disparaging" in your own mind. We established long ago that everybody to the left of you (ie 99% of the population) is a "leftie" - you presumably think I'm one, and I'm still way to the right of centre.

Though there is something to this criticism of supporters of left leaning parties - not all of them, though there are significant numbers on here. They also fail in empathy, because apparently they can't understand how it us possible to be bothered about other people, reasonably intelligent and still vote Tory. Sure the ultimate aims of many in control of policies of the Tory party, and certainly the vast majority of its donors are enrichment of the rich, but that certainly doesn't go for plenty of people who vote for them.

An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries - so although the rich don't want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier

They be happier because they're less likely to be turned over at the cash machine or be a victim of a household burg or sheding, getting thier 5 grand whip nicked..

They also fail in empathy, because apparently they can't understand how it us possible to be bothered about other people, reasonably intelligent and still vote Tory.

No, frankly I can't. Even a cursory analytical appraisal of current Tory policy means that either there is a lack of comprehension of the implications of those policies, or they're comprehended perfectly well by people who at best just shrug and carry on not caring.

And fwiw taxi, all you did was try to turn the argument round on me. I note you didn't actually refute a single word of my argument.

Well, almost - they certainly place a high priority on the rich keeping their cash and also the cash of poorer people.

Still disagree. The plan isn't actually to take moeny from be poor. It's to let people do what they want. Well of course, a lot of rich business people want to exploit the poor, but the Tories think this is just how it has to be. If you're being exploited then you need to stop being so useless and fight back. They think this is fair, everyone can fail or succeed on merit.

Yup, that's what I was aiming at by calling Tory voters murderers and enablers on the Corbyn thread, Zokes.
Hyperbole, absolutely.
But ignorance couldn't be used as an excuse as despite the hyperbole, links to deaths and death statistics were provided which were linked to Tory welfare reform, so the only conclusion I could come to is as you state above.

A heartless analysis, Mol, but probably nail on the head.

Well of course, a lot of rich business people want to exploit the poor, but the Tories think this is just how it has to be. If you're being exploited then you need to stop being so useless and fight back. They think this is fair, everyone can fail or succeed on merit*.

*Merit - or place of birth, postcode, parents wealth, luck etc.

The lasting trick is the same as the "American Dream" You can all be successful, please ignore the minor issues around the fact you will never be able to afford to consider expanding your chances but you could.

We could also judge people on their actions, plan A create a problem then you are able to propose an unpleasant solution to the problem you just created.
The current government has demonized immigrants, the poor, the judiciary and others so far.

They also fail in empathy, because apparently they can't understand how it us possible to be bothered about other people, reasonably intelligent and still vote Tory.

Correct - given the harm they have done I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of empathy could vote Tory.

They think this is fair, everyone can fail or succeed on merit.

If they believed that then there'd be a 100% inheritance tax, a ban on any private selective funding for education, and a ban on private healthcare for anyone using money that they hadn't earned themselves to pay for it. All these things favour families that already have lots of money and can pass it on to their children so that they may be advantaged. This leaves those without rich parents at a disadvantage for no reason other than that their parents were poor.

Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?

I know I don't, I find it laughable that someone would consider the term mortally wounding to my psyche or ego!

ulysse - Member
Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?

As pointed out above, I'm not even particularly left leaning and find it quite amusing. It's even more amusing now it's been clarified that it's an attempt to be disparaging.

and back on some sort of topic....
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
I think that is called a swing.... with 2 1/2 weeks to go can they make more slip ups?
The other thing with votes like this is momentum (not that one) there are people in the middle who will vote with the tide as it were, not bothering to step up as the result is already decided. If it tightens then things may change on that. Add in what might increased voting among young people it isn't settled yet.

Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?

Not really. It's like an attempt to insult someone by accusing them of being caring and compassionate of others.

Pretty similar to calling someone a Tory when you really mean "odious cretin", which of course Tory is synonymous with 😆

oh and a wonderful who said it quote on the BBC

"The biggest threat to every generation in this country is getting Brexit wrong.
"Get Brexit wrong and we get everything wrong - from looking after our elderly to paying for our children's education."

In light of that MWS, my revised definition of Tory is "incompetent hypocritical odious cretin singularly lacking in self awareness"

[quote=mikewsmith ]I think that is called a swing....

It is, an entirely unsurprising one too. My flabber is still gasted that the Tories either didn't realise what an electoral landmine that was, or were so arrogant that they didn't care.

Add in what might increased voting among young people it isn't settled yet.

That is indeed an interesting one. I'm yet to see any evidence there is a real effect there, but given continual reminders on social media (I have several under 30 FB friends, so doing my bit) there might be this time around. Not only that, but I suspect the dementia tax thing might result in some older people still being Tory voters according to the polls, but not bothering to vote on the day.

<spoiler alert for those who want to guess mike's quote>

The truly bizarre thing there is that even if I didn't trust Corbyn to run a bath he would still be preferable over a "bloody difficult woman" regarding a negotiation where the other side holds most of the cards. Of course such comments are playing to the diehard Brexiteers who still think we can dictate the terms of the negotiation with the EU. Even assuming we still leave under a Labour government (which still seems most likely) I'd bet my house on us securing a better deal under them.

The Mail in a nutshell "Voters even prefer May to Maggie"- amazing, how could anyone be more popular than Maggie?

I wonder how many Labour people are looking at themselves just now and thinking "Wonder what would have happened if we'd actually worked with Corbyn?" Maybe the Tories would have been running a tighter ship if they felt more challenged, of course... But after all that's happened, to be where they are now must come as a shock. Or maybe they'll be thinking "Phew, if we hadn't worked so hard, we'd be winning"

Brexit. Lets take our country back, was tossed about freely in conversation.
What could be more "taking the country back" than Corbyns vision of taking the railways back from the Dutch Germans and French, taking Royal mail back from George Osborne's best man, taking Electricity back from EDF....

All these ideas up there, what it also highlights is how much Corbyn etc. are not smart political operators, unless he has a list of devastating questions for May at their interview thingy.The list of open goals is increasing...
How do you propose to reduce immigration when you have failed completely at it before? Why that hasn't been on billboards yet I don't know.

What Macron did well with against the fascist was to have smart, good answers to the insults and accusations. I don't think JC can manage that.

If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.

[quote=mikewsmith ]If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.

You should be Labour party strategist - I honestly think that might win it for them.

You know what - I agree with using peoples assets to pay for care. I believe its the right thing to do. Otherwise we are subsidising middle class children's inheritances. I also believe the triple lock on pensions is wrong.

However I am astonished it was put in the tory manifesto. An obvious vote loser and an easy target for Labour. Usually the tories are very clever in managing their policies to make electoral capital out of them and I can see no reason why this was put in bar they thought it the right thing to do and believed they had such a lead they would be able to shrug it off

Hmmm, brexit negotiations.

Kier Starmer, or Boris Johnson?

Yep people should pay their own way through care when they can. However it's so easy to fiddle the system to make sure you don't have the assets that it's a joke, the ones that will avoid the most are those who can afford it. The ones who can't will as usual bear the brunt of it.

If it happens then a large amount of cash in the housing market gets very liquid...
If your house is valued at a mere 500k then you have 400k to go onto your care, sounds simple, but once it kicks in and your debt/tab is up at near your house value it means whoever fronted you the cash needs their money. It then creates another sub prime style security issue where the funding is reliant on house prices staying stable at a minimum or rising. Factor in much reduced inheritance and hand outs to kids/grandkids (one of the common ways to get a deposit these days) and the housing market has another wobble.

Highlight version - it's a very complicated issue 🙂 Changing one thing will change a lot more, the knock on effect could be huge and then who picks up the care tab for all these people?

#FullyCostedMyArse

An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries - so although the rich don't want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier

That is the essence of the book 'The Spirit Level', that we ALL do better if the lower earners are lifted up.

I think it makes complete sense.

If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.

Not so sure about this. People would be confused. I would say a lot of folk are just getting used to him. To whip him away would open the flood gates for lots of bad publicity.

It is, an entirely unsurprising one too. My flabber is still gasted that the Tories either didn't realise what an electoral landmine that was, or were so arrogant that they didn't care.

Not so sure about this. People would be confused. I would say a lot of folk are just getting used to him. To whip him away would open the flood gates for lots of bad publicity.

Agree, would be a bad thing to do. Who would be the next leader, would they have a mandate as they weren't elected, yet another election etc,. etc,. The more people see him (and more importantly the more people see May) and don't judge based on the BS in the media the better chance he has.
Relies on open minds unfortunately and also not enough time left.

Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term "Lefties" is bandied about?

Doesn't bother me at all, nor does calling me a Marxist. Not sure why I would be insulted

Would be like calling a Tory a righty, which would be as silly as it sounds.

'Lefty' is exactly how I describe myself. It also helps to explain why I have voted for four different left-of-centre political candidates/parties over the years rather than being wedded to one party irrespective of its policies and manifesto.

What ninfan seems to be pretending to not realise is that when he uses the term, it is attributing personal qualities or failings to the term, like 'whiney, smug, superior, condescending'. Of course these 'qualities' are present in the posting styles of many people on this forum past and present not least ninfan in the case of the last three but not the first one.

But hey, we are a massively self-selecting sample of people. The vast majority of politically thoughtful people do not post on here or other special interest forums and are probably very different (to me included obvs) in their debating, errr, 'style'!

I'm not convinced they won't yet backtrack on it "after careful review"; put it down to "listening to the public" and gather back all those lost votes and more.

I'm actually in favour of this policy. When it comes to inheritance my personal view is that any money or assets you have left when you die should go to a random memeber of the public in a lottery system but going to the state is the second best option.

What I'm hoping is that this policy was specifically designed to appeal to voters like me. They probably assumed they had the old vote completely sewn up and wanted a significant percentage of the under 40s to really give them a mandate to have and do whatever the **** they want.

I have absolutely no desire to vote for them so hopefully this will bite them hard.

I'm actually in favour of this policy. When it comes to inheritance my personal view is that any money or assets you have left when you die should go to a random memeber of the public in a lottery system but going to the state is the second best option.

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. What about families who lose their main bread-winner? You do realise "the State" will just absorb it and it will go into painting the House of Commons toilets? What about people spending their entire lives paying taxes to "the State", only for "the State" to take even more when they die? What about "the State's" responsibility to it's citizens? You are suggesting that everything is ultimately owned by "the State", which is dangerous, to say the least. In your scenario, "the State" can't wait for people to die, so they can take their assets, so why assist pensioners with heating, bills etc? Hell, they may as well bring in forced euthanasia "for the good of "the State"".

The whole "going to a random member of the public by lottery" is just as daft" Why the hell should families give up everything their spouse, or other relative, has worked hard to build? For example: My Gran died last December: My Mum and her brothers, spent a lot of time looking in on her, caring for her, taking her places. She owned her own home, she refused to go into a care home. She died at home, where she wanted to be. Why the hell should the State come in and take all that away?

I'm actually laughing to myself how absurd what you said is. Get a grip.

It's a difficult situation -
Person 1 - does **** all all their lives, sits on arse, creates no jobs/Wealth- gets 100% social care

Person 2 - starts off life as person 1, works hard, makes sacrifices, creates jobs/wealth gets 0% social care

My small business that employees 8 people creates over £150k tax (excluding vat which is £60k +)

So over 25 years that's £3.5m - (excluding vat) my enterprise has paid in, to be frank the gov owes me my arse wiped once a day.