the snap general election thread

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Accepted, we all make mistakes.
A leader leads by example and inspires other to follow.

TM does not show these qualities for me.

A strong leader would have accepted the error, showed compassion by listening and used that to show their adaptability and flexibility to achieve the right outcome for the British people.

Instead, she's trying to take us all for fools

Lovely, but answer the question?

Though I would be interested to know ........... what is the sign of a good leader in your view from the current choice?

masterwilde

what gets me is people do not read the manifesto, they instead rely on the media to since bring up the "bad" points.

what about labours part on the any adult at any age retraining for free in any sector they want

.string.

I agree that May needs to up her game, on her position I would certainly have said the equivalent of whoops.

In fact, however I agree with houses being taken into account in the assets, although not on the way the policy meant/was interpreted.

To take some very simple examples.

Just suppose you are an individual who has a house worth 200k, plus 500k cash. Under the scheme as interpreted his wealth is reduced to 100k, and he can leave only half his 100k house to leave to his kids.

Now take the "new" scheme where the house is, apparently, not included in wealth. That means he can leave 100k plus the 100k house to the kids.

But suppose that individual decides to sell his 100k house and buy a 600k house. That means he can leave 100k plus his 600 k house to his kids.

Whether one thinks the last scenario is good or bad is, well, up to the individual and their circumstances. He may decide to buy his own care, but the new scheme would encourage his financially since he would get it for free.

But the point I am making is that whatever the final outcome is, the value of the house figures in some way or another and should not be ignored. Also it's clear there are many famous tors influencing the fairness/affordability of the approach. I

Malthusian

masterwilde wrote: »

what gets me is people do not read the manifesto

Even MPs don't read the manifesto. No-one has any excuse for reading a manifesto, unless it's possible that they have already read literally every single line of literature, poetry and reference book ever written and have to resort to something.

what about labours part on the any adult at any age retraining for free in any sector they want

See? This is what I mean. This is what manifestos consist of. Delusional tripe of no informational value.

If you smoke some salvia divinorum then bash your head against the wall for five minutes, you'll be better-informed about the likely future of the country over the next 5 years under a given political party than if you read their manifesto.

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Lovely, but answer the question?

Yes I wonder what the answer would be.

It leads me to make a point which I've been wanting to make.

Corbyn is most definitely a net vote looser, but for me - overarching Corbyn is the Labour Party itself who have seen fit to elect him as a leader not only once but twice. It speaks for their having gone too far left to be electable.

For me, as a floating voter, I find that scary and a good reason to vote for a different party than Labour. Floating voters are kind of important in elections; they have to be won over and hard left in the Labour Party is no match in that respect to a Tory Party expousing the centre ground.

.string.

Malthusian wrote: »

Even MPs don't read the manifesto. No-one has any excuse for reading a manifesto, unless it's possible that they have already read literally every single line of literature, poetry and reference book ever written and have to resort to something.



See? This is what I mean. This is what manifestos consist of. Delusional tripe of no informational value.

If you smoke some salvia divinorum then bash your head against the wall for five minutes, you'll be better-informed about the likely future of the country over the next 5 years under a given political party than if you read their manifesto.

Regarding your last paragraph, you must have done just that.

Edit: reading my post again, it really is too terse and more agressive than I meant to be, so sorry for that. I was reacting to the head banging scenario because actually I would agree that most people either don't read anything or if they do, they read selectively. I normally do the latter, focussing on what interests me, although it's not normally rewarding and head banging in frustration is actually not a bad analogy to my reaction. It's difficult not to be cynical before reading but often even more difficult afterwards.

Nevertheless I don't subscribe to the view that politicians don't try to work to their principles, it's more that they don't share my principles !

It's like the saying goes:

In this world they're all idiots, except thee and me, and I'm not so sure about thee.

Conrad

No one reads the manifesto just as they don't read the manual before choosing a car. It's about trust and general sense of direction.


Pointless reading manifestos anyway. For example Labours wont mention the fact interest rates are far more likely to rise with their borrowing plans or that people and business will change behaviour (such as less hiring) and therefore overall tax may fall despite tax rates rising.

Fella

Conrad wrote: »

Pointless reading manifestos anyway. For example Labours wont mention the fact interest rates are far more likely to rise with their borrowing plans or that people and business will change behaviour (such as less hiring) and therefore overall tax may fall despite tax rates rising.

Yep the Labour manifesto doesn't even add up if you account for the tangibles, let alone the intangibles. It presumes you can hit corporations in any number of ways (Robin hood tax, Corp tax, many others) without them changing behaviour in the slightest. Or profitability (most of our pensions depend upon dividends from the very companies Labour want to hit hardest). Even some of their lesser mentioned policies would have an astronomical cost. For example, casually creating 4 new bank holidays. Some very basic sums tell us that most people work around 200 days a year (365 minus weekends, holidays, sick etc). 4 extra bank holidays represents 2% of that. If they were introduced every company would need to employ 2% extra staff to make up the shortfall. The NHS employs approx 1,400,000 so they would need to take on another 2,800 people to cover those 4 bank holidays. And so on. But this doesnt even get a mention on the Labour manifesto. And yet they are not only allowed to send one moron after another on TV to repeat the lie that it's fully costed, but their supporters complain about the harsh coverage they get to boot. Couldn't make it up really.

setmefree2

Conrad wrote: »

May was awful last night in the Andrew Neil interview. She should have just held up her hands and admitted the care policy needed a full re-think and to announce some kind of cap figure.


She sometimes needs to pause for breath and stop talking like a robot

I thought she did well. If she'd put figures on anything - say winter fule allowance cut off point - the papers would have found the poor losers on exactly that amount of income....she knows exactly all the figures they (the government) are contemplating - the trick is not to tell anyone else...then they can't nail you to the cross...

setmefree2

.string. wrote: »

But the point I am making is that whatever the final outcome is, the value of the house figures in some way or another and should not be ignored. Also it's clear there are many famous tors influencing the fairness/affordability of the approach.

Indeed.

Also, it's so dumb to call this new social care plan a "dementia tax" - there is already a dementia tax since nobody with dementia can stay in their own home - they end up in residential care and their wealth is diminished to £28k...

When I hear someone call this a dementia tax I dismiss them almost immediately as they clearly don't know what they are talking about....