Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[aardvark]

New Labour in disguise?

lol - possibly.

Its bizarre to see labour argue that the policy is bad, when its something they have always believed in.

 

[h4rm0ny]

My mother in law was round last night grumbling about how all her candidates are rubbish and she probably won't vote, but she thinks Labour are going to win. Erm, ok...

Well, she's half right!

 

[jonneymendoza]

I expect many people have already made their minds up - personally I think the Tory manifesto is disappointing and isnt the best one out there that represents me

However.......
I dont see any credible party outside of the Tories that would make me put a tick in their box so whilst some of the stuff in there isnt great - I dont trust any of the others (better manifesto or not) to be competent enough to deliver theirs.

a bit of a rubbish situation to be in but not voting isnt an option

so who do u vote for?

 

[VincentHanna]

The tories of course, awful manifesto, no costings, control freak leader, Hard Brexit.

But they are "Strong and Stable", I've heard them tell me.

 

[Greebo]

The tories of course, awful manifesto, no costings, control freak leader, Hard Brexit.

But they are "Strong and Stable", I've heard them tell me.

Alas I can see that will be exactly the reasons many people vote for them.

 

[Tunney]

1. We had a referendum on voting reform in 2011, the people decided they preferred FPTP. I personally wanted to change to AV, but I accept the result of that referendum so we must stick with FPTP (I did point out at the time that voting for FPTP would mean no possibility of voting reform for a long, long time). Hey ho.

We had a referendum on FPTP vs AV as a way to elect MPs for the House of Commons. It's a stretch to say that it was a vote on the best mulit-purpose voting system.

The Conservatives are pledging to use FPTP for all elections, not just general elections.

2. Surely tackling voting fraud is a good thing for government to be prioritising? We wouldn't want any external influence of our elections now would we?

At the last election, there were 123 allegations of voter fraud. All but 22 allegations were dismissed. By contrast, 3.5 million voters do not hold photo ID.

22 counts of voter fraud is an acceptable risk if the alternative is the disenfranchisement of up to 3.5 million people.

 

[VincentHanna]

lol - possibly.

Its bizarre to see labour argue that the policy is bad, when its something they have always believed in.

I don't recall Labour ever saying people should use their houses to fund their own care.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the Conservatives of "forcing those who need social care to pay for it with their homes". Speaking on the BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show he labelled the policy a "dementia tax".

 

[aardvark]

I don't recall Labour ever saying people should use their houses to fund their own care.

being against dynastic wealth transfer and against giving money to people who don't need it that could be given to the less well off (winter fuel allowance for example) has always been something the left supported.

i was listening to jeremy vine today and the labour guy arguing that it was a bad policy - well, it made him sound like a tory. Its bizarre how switched it is.

 

[VincentHanna]

Strong and stable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39976701

 

[StriderX]

Isn't that what people want from Labour though, unprincipled opposition?

LOL, people should make their minds up or stop discussing.

 

[antijoke]

So the Conservative plan is uncosted but people are still lapping it up. Brilliant.

You expected otherwise?

 

[The_Abyss]

Ergo the Tory policy which raises even less funds doesn't raise sufficient funds and is based on borrowing the money now and getting it back several years down the line when the person and their partner have passed away.

So why introduce something which clearly many people don't like which doesn't even raise as much money as everybody paying £8.50 a month which you dismiss as that doesn't realise sufficient funds?

That's a question you need to put to Theresa May, if she's started taking any questions yet.

 

[VincentHanna]

being against dynastic wealth transfer and against giving money to people who don't need it that could be given to the less well off (winter fuel allowance for example) has always been something the left supported.

i was listening to jeremy vine today and the labour guy arguing that it was a bad policy - well, it made him sound like a tory. Its bizarre how switched it is.

Are we talking about the Winter fuel allowance or the Tories plan to include using equity from people's home to pay for in-home social care?

I do think the winter fuel allowance should be means tested, as it's pointless that wealthy people get £400 a year or whatever it is when they don't need it.

 

[Greebo]

That's a question you need to put to Theresa May, if she's started taking any questions yet.

I did. I submitted an email and got back "We need a strong and stable government"

Are we talking about the Winter fuel allowance or the Tories plan to include using equity from people's home to pay for in-home social care?

I do think the winter fuel allowance should be means tested, as it's pointless that wealthy people get £400 a year or whatever it is when they don't need it.

The argument against it and why it should be a universal benefit is that a lot of the people who probably should claim for it and would be allowed to get it are going to be put off from completing a complicated means test form. So yes, the rich won't get it but there are good odds that a lot of people who should wont get it as well and that will increase deaths. Suppose it all helps the pension problem.

 

[dowie]

being against dynastic wealth transfer and against giving money to people who don't need it that could be given to the less well off (winter fuel allowance for example) has always been something the left supported.

i was listening to jeremy vine today and the labour guy arguing that it was a bad policy - well, it made him sound like a tory. Its bizarre how switched it is.

indeed - not too dissimilar to this thread yesterday when people who are typically anti Tory were attacking the policy when it could quite easily have been included in a Labour manifesto

 

[Uther]

I did. I submitted an email and got back "We need a strong and stable government"

 

[aardvark]

Are we talking about the Winter fuel allowance or the Tories plan to include using equity from people's home to pay for in-home social care?

both imo.
labour have always been in favour of higher inheritance tax - its kind of the same thing really.

Someone has to pay for the care of the elderly and with the changing demographics it will get to the point that it is impossible for the government to pay (without bleeding current tax payers dry).

 

[Trifid]

I have a question, and it probably seems stupid but i very, very rarely talk politics with the people in my life because it's so divisive.

If you find yourself strongly aligned with a smaller party, will you vote for that party knowing it's unikely to a) enter power or b) prevent a party you dont want from entering power; or will you vote for a larger party that's somewhat aligned to your politics but doesn't necessarily represent you (or you dont particularly like them) as it has a higher chance of a) entering power or b) preventing a party you dont want from entering power.

Vote for the small party. They are never going to get larger if everyone had the attitude of they will never make it into power. At the very least you have voiced your support for those policies and some of them may be picked up by the larger ones.

 

[VincentHanna]

I agree.

I always voted Lib Dems and they never really had much of a chance (2010 was their best outing)

Am voting Labour for the first time now, as their manifesto is more appealing to me now.

 

[antijoke]

No She Doesn't

You sure about that?

THERESA MAY TO CREATE NEW INTERNET THAT WOULD BE CONTROLLED AND REGULATED BY GOVERNMENT
The proposals come soon after the government won the right to collect everyone's browsing history.
Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet", the manifesto claims.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers' browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online". That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists' messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else's messages, technology companies have warned.

The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.

A FRAMEWORK FOR DATA AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree. While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide. Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits. It is in the interests of stable markets that consumers are protected from abusive behaviour, that money is able to flow freely and securely, and that competition between businesses takes place on a level playing field. It is in no-one’s interest for the foundations of strong societies and stable democracies – the rule of law, privacy and security – to be undermined.

So we will establish a regulatory framework in law to underpin our digital charter and to ensure that digital companies, social media platforms and content providers abide by these principles. We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law. We will also create a power in law for government to introduce an industry-wide levy from social media companies and communication service providers to support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms, just as is already the case with the gambling industry.

Just as we led the world in regulating embryology thirty years ago, we know that if we create the right system of governance for the digital economy and use of data, we will attract the right businesses who want to become the global centre for data use and research.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ternet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterso...e-the-internet?utm_term=.fmmnQeAwj#.mvjzg3oq7