Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[FoxEye]

That's because your view of what 'social justice' is has been massively warped by the internet.

Corbyn is talking about the huge divide between the rich and poor.

This.

No idea why people are saying that JC "fluffed it" last night. The more I hear him speak the more I like him and his ideas/principles.

As for social justice... it's no secret that even economists and others who aren't left-leaning by any means... these people are increasingly telling us that the growing rich/poor divide is not only unsustainable it's actually inefficient and bad for our economy. Everybody should be concerned with "social justice" of this nature... giving a greater and greater share to the 1% is actually damaging this country's prosperity.

Does *anyone* hear think the Tories will do anything to halt/reverse the growth of the wealth gap? Heck, no. They will either keep the status quo where it favours the well-off, or will actively promote the interests of the wealthy/powerful.

May's "I'm for the working class" is as transparent as could be. If she at all believes what she says, then she must know that her party will simply not allow her to implement anything which could be to the detriment of potential Tory voters.

We need a Corbyn/socialist government because we need to reverse the current trend of ever-concentrating wealth at the top.

 

[dowie]

Not avoiding it, haven't been back in there recently.

Will reply when I see it.

you've seen it already... you even quoted the post but ignored the question and focused on a missing word instead...

 

[dowie]

Are they his current position? Are they position laid out in the Labour manifesto?

Everything I've seen says that they are not.

his previous views/stances are still pretty relevant

 

[quickshot89]

We need a Corbyn/socialist government because we need to reverse the current trend of ever-concentrating wealth at the top.

So working hard, doing a decent degree, get a decent well paying job means you need to be punished by being taxed more? Any decent IT job you can earn over the 80K with overtime and on-call, yes you loose some social hours, but its a trade off.

I'm all for giving the NHS more funding, but it needs to be the correct funding. putting plaster over plaster does nothing but delay the break

 

[dl8860]

Can't believe the size of the swing in voting on this poll, it's as if May must have made some monstrous gaff.

Didn't watch the interviews last night, and in my estimation TM is becoming more robotic and less robust by the day, but even still I can't believe the size of this swing.

My first priority for this election is for Labour not to get elected, and given the swing over the last few days, this means I'll be voting Cons (especially as my constituency is very tight between Lab and Cons), even though I would quite like to vote Lib Dem.

 

[Macro]

I think i'm going to take a pragmatic view this time out and base my vote on two parliaments rather than which vacuous politician i like the look of on TV.

Pragmatically the only real option for a unified strong government in a good position to negotiate Brexit, Scottish independance and keep the economy's fragile recovery on track for the short term is Conservative. If that's the case I'd rather they had a good working majority to get the job done rather than a bunch of bickering minorities stabbing each other in the back and undermining the bigger picture to further their own parties parochial policies. Whilst it could be said the tories are owned by finance, big business and the banks, during the next few years reassuring the finance and business sector will be key to keeping the economy on an even keel. On the other hand Labour, and Corbyn in particular will be indebted to the big unions and whilst there's a lot to be said for looking after the interests of union members frankly during the next five years I just can't see a push to re empower the unions political agendas bringing a good result for the country at a time of such change and uncertainty.

The caveat to my vote is once we're passed the main Brexit, Scottish independence and economic recovery hurdles in this next parliament i'm all for the electorate punishing the Tories hard if they don't deliver, just as they did when New Labour took power for 13 years in 97.

Sadly (and perhaps slightly madly) I'd have quite liked to see a Tory/Labour government of national unity for 5 years as we go through all the changes on the horizon. We only get one chance to get this right, if we **** it up, we and our children will be living with the consequences for years to come and nothing I hear from Juncker and the EU makes me think they want to have a fluffy be nice to the UK discussion over a cup of tea. The only way we're going to get a decent deal is going to be tough negotiations and a starting from a point of view of "please be nice to us, we'll do whatever you want just be kind" is not going to get us there. The EU absolutely has to try to punish the UK if it's to maintain the ambitions of the likes of Macron, Merkel and Juncker for a federal europe and it would be mad for us not to start negotiations from a position of "no deal is better than a bad deal". It's basic diplomacy/negotiation 101.

I'm sorry Jeremy, as much as I'm sure you are passionate about your beliefs and there may be a time for them, now is not it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Just seen a headline that Theresa May has accused Corbyn of making an "excuse for Terrorism". Seems unable to tell the difference between "excuse" and "explanation". Imagine going to your doctor and attacking them for excusing your diagnosis because they told you how it happened! Are pro-vaccination people making excuses for measles? Maybe children should just learn to be "tough on diseases" instead.

 

[Lucifurr]

Hmm, it looks like Labour really hate house owners as they look to introduce something called Land Value Tax to replace council tax. I say house owners as I think Flats won't have this tax as you don't own the land.

It seems like this will drastically push up what was council tax for home owners. Using the Telegraphs example, my annual council tax bill of £1,700 would be replaced with an annual Land Value Tax of bill £5,280. I doubt it will be a dramatic as that, I just used the Telegraph example that 55% value of my property is based on the land and the price of the house when purchased in 2014. I would imagine the percentage would be smaller.

Something like this would surely kill the housing market for those who currently own but would be good for First Time Buyers.

Its mentioned on page 86 of the Labour manifesto as something they would look into.

Telegraph article
Labour Land Campaign

 

[EddScott]

I think i'm going to take a pragmatic view this time out and base my vote on two parliaments rather than which vacuous politician i like the look of on TV.

Pragmatically the only real option for a unified strong government in a good position to negotiate Brexit, Scottish independance and keep the economy's fragile recovery on track for the short term is Conservative. If that's the case I'd rather they had a good working majority to get the job done rather than a bunch of bickering minorities stabbing each other in the back and undermining the bigger picture to further their own parties parochial policies. Whilst it could be said the tories are owned by finance, big business and the banks, during the next few years reassuring the finance and business sector will be key to keeping the economy on an even keel. On the other hand Labour, and Corbyn in particular will be indebted to the big unions and whilst there's a lot to be said for looking after the interests of union members frankly during the next five years I can't a push to remenpower the unions political agendas bringing a good result for the country at a time of such change and uncertainty.

The caveat to my vote is once we're passed the main Brexit, Scottish independence and economic recovery hurdles in this next parliament i'm all for the electorate punishing the Tories hard if they don't deliver, just as they did when New Labour took power for 13 years in 97.

Sadly (and perhaps slightly madly) I'd have quite liked to see a Tory/Labour government of national unity for 5 years as we go through all the changes on the horizon. We only get one chance to get this right, if we **** it up, we and our children will be living with the consequences for years to come and nothing I hear from Juncker and the EU makes me think they want to have a fluffy be nice to the UK discussion over a cup of tea. The only way we're going to get a decent deal is going to be tough negotiations and a starting from a point of view of "please be nice to us, we'll do whatever you want just be kind" is not going to get us there. The EU absolutely has to try to punish the UK if it's to maintain the ambitions of the likes of Macron, Merkel and Juncker for a federal europe.

I'm sorry Jeremy, as much as I'm sure you are passionate about your beliefs and there may be a time for them, now is not it.

What an excellent post. Sums up my feelings on the matter.

I would say though, I don't believe the Tories are all for hard brexit. Tories are business orientated and business will want the status quo to continue. We'll get a strong, stable, soft (ish) brexit.

 

[FoxEye]

So working hard, doing a decent degree, get a decent well paying job means you need to be punished by being taxed more? Any decent IT job you can earn over the 80K with overtime and on-call, yes you loose some social hours, but its a trade off.

I'm all for giving the NHS more funding, but it needs to be the correct funding. putting plaster over plaster does nothing but delay the break

Isn't actually remotely close to what I said, tho.

The concentration of wealth to the top 1% (or 2%, 10%) is going to have a negative effect on the economy.

The rise of corporate profits (corp profits having doubled in the last decade or so according to commentary I've seen) is also leading to a worse performing economy. And various people - not socialists - have been willing to put their necks on the line to say, in a nutshell, "We can't carry on like this; we have to reverse these trends; because if we do nothing we're staring at very grave long-term effects."

I know it's hard not to look at things from a selfish/individual angle. Of course we all do it.

But earning £80k wouldn't put you anywhere near the top 1% anyhow, would it. On the flip side, how much more than £80k do you need to live comfortably? The higher tax rate only applies to earning over £80k, after all. Is £80k less than you need to live well? How about £150k? Could you just-about-manage on that?

 

[Greebo]

Hmm, it looks like Labour really hate house owners as they look to introduce something called Land Value Tax to replace council tax. I say house owners as I think Flats won't have this tax as you don't own the land.

It seems like this will drastically push up what was council tax for home owners. Using the Telegraphs example, my annual council tax bill of £1,700 would be replaced with an annual Land Value Tax of bill £5,280. I doubt it will be a dramatic as that, I just used the Telegraph example that 55% value of my property is based on the land and the price of the house when purchased in 2014. I would imagine the percentage would be smaller.

Something like this would surely kill the housing market for those who currently own but would be good for First Time Buyers.

Its mentioned on page 86 of the Labour manifesto as something they would look into.

Telegraph article
Labour Land Campaign

I saw about this, Boris said it will cost every home owner and extra £4,500 per year in "garden tax", a claim which has been totally refuted by labour.

EDIT: That article is rubbish about its claim people would see off their gardens. I suspect on the average house value of £233k, the average garden is valued at £1 to £2k so would barely make any difference on the amount of the new land tax would be.

Round were I live the plot value with planning permission is around £50k for a £250k house so that would be £1,500 so probably what the council tax is anyway or maybe even slightly less.

And I totally agree with this charge been applied to empty plots. It will stop people sitting on them for years.

The losers are going to the Chelsea brigade where the 3% of their land value will be a lot more than their council tax now.

 

[Conscript]

So working hard, doing a decent degree, get a decent well paying job means you need to be punished by being taxed more? Any decent IT job you can earn over the 80K with overtime and on-call, yes you loose some social hours, but its a trade off.

I'm all for giving the NHS more funding, but it needs to be the correct funding. putting plaster over plaster does nothing but delay the break

Tax is not a punishment for doing well. This seems to be a theme that many people adopt, that somehow, taxing higher earners is a punishment and a deterrent against personal prosperity. It's not - it's asking those who earn the most to shoulder a little more of the cost of maintaining a society that everyone (including those earners themselves) benefits from. If it was a punishment then no-one would be encouraged to do their best to earn more, but I don't think that's the case.

Even if you think that the amount of tax you pay is disproportionate to the benefit you receive back, surely you can see that it's worth it for the benefit of society as a whole? I'm not a high earner in terms of my tax bracket, but I work hard, I have a decent degree and I have a well paying job - I wouldn't object to paying slightly more in tax if it meant improved education, healthcare, national transport, etc, even if they are things I rarely use, because these things improve the standards of the society in which I live. I certainly wouldn't find myself discouraged from trying to better myself and earn more simply because it meant paying more tax.

 

[Greebo]

Isn't actually remotely close to what I said, tho.

The concentration of wealth to the top 1% (or 2%, 10%) is going to have a negative effect on the economy.

The rise of corporate profits (corp profits having doubled in the last decade or so according to commentary I've seen) is also leading to a worse performing economy. And various people - not socialists - have been willing to put their necks on the line to say, in a nutshell, "We can't carry on like this; we have to reverse these trends; because if we do nothing we're staring at very grave long-term effects."

I know it's hard not to look at things from a selfish/individual angle. Of course we all do it.

But earning £80k wouldn't put you anywhere near the top 1% anyhow, would it. On the flip side, how much more than £80k do you need to live comfortably? The higher tax rate only applies to earning over £80k, after all. Is £80k less than you need to live well? How about £150k? Could you just-about-manage on that?

I believe £80k puts you in the top 5% and you need £129k for the top 1% (I expected that figure to be higher)

 

[McBain]

He thought killing him without trial was a travesty, there's an important difference.


Exactly, we're not going to be getting into a war with the USA anytime soon (hell we're not going to be getting into a war with anyone anytime soon) so wasting billions to ensure we could last another five minutes against them (the only thing the upgrade will achieve as it's already far superior to what would be enemies possess or are planning) is pointless.


Not like it actually matters who pushes the button, if it's him or the next in line it still gets pressed. This is one of those mountain/molehill things. I mean is who specifically pushes the button to retaliate after we have all been killed that important in the long run.

1. Except it wasn't a travesty, add that to the list of things I disagree with Corbyn on.
2. As I said above, having a nuclear deterrent isn't just about being able to fire them on people.
3. Matters to me, if someone is expected to be leading the country I expect them to be able to make the decision. What else is he willing to fob off?

 

[Narj]

Well, this made me chuckle!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/may-rebooted-live-on-air-20170530128503

 

[ubersonic]

No idea why people are saying that JC "fluffed it" last night.

He walked into the debate with a bazooka, then smiled at may and threw it away. Not losing a debate you should have dominated = fluffing it.

 

[Uther]

1. Except it wasn't a travesty, add that to the list of things I disagree with Corbyn on.
2. As I said above, having a nuclear deterrent isn't just about being able to fire them on people.
3. Matters to me, if someone is expected to be leading the country I expect them to be able to make the decision. What else is he willing to fob off?

Just go for the Strong and Stable option then, which is....errr...none of the above.

 

[chroniclard]

All these worries about the economy, our kids, still voted for Brexit that screws them all up. People are mental.

 

[FoxEye]

I believe £80k puts you in the top 5% and you need £129k for the top 1% (I expected that figure to be higher)

That's less than I'd thought.

It does rather make the point, however, that £80k is more than enough to live on, if only 5% are earning that much. However I'm finding it hard to believe. We know from other threads that 80% of OcUK members earn six-figure salaries... And the chap we're responding to said that "any decent IT job" can pay over £80k.

If true then the amount of available "decent IT jobs" must be very, very small. So something isn't right, here.

 

[ubersonic]

1. Except it wasn't a travesty

Yes it was, when an unarmed man is summarily executed by a first world nation without trial or due process that is a textbook travesty of justice.

3. Matters to me

Well, if you want to base a voting decision on little inconsequential matters that are of no real relevance that's your prerogative