the snap general election thread

setmefree2

masterwilde wrote: »

mr ginge its based on facts lol.

feel free to try and argue it though....it will be interesting

Another for the ignore list.

BobQ

Chrysalis wrote: »

This is a battle of the generations.

Baby boomers.

Dont consider poverty in the UK an issue
Dont consider the UK to have a housing crisis.
Think brexit is the most important issue.
Their pensions come first.

Younger generation.

Spiralling university costs are issues.
Housing is a problem.
Would rather brexit didnt happen.
Care more about social issues and public services.

Not really. Many of the older generation would no more vote Tory than you.

Its about what all elections are about. The selfishness of the few versus being fair to the many. Neither party is perfect and both have some good ideas, but ultimately they want to look after their core support and cajole the rest that they will look after them too.

Baby Boomers are no different to you, they want the party they choose to look after their interests, but the idea that baby boomers are all the same is flawed.

setmefree2

FWIW the LP is trying to raise £30 billion from companies - that's £30 billion from Corporate profits -one of the biggest tax increases we've EVER known - currently we raise £50 to £60 billion from CT - so they are trying to more than double the take from profits - they've done no homework on the effect of this.

it's not impossible that they'll get this but on the other hand

#ByeByeJobs

.string.

[/QUOTE]

steampowered wrote: »

This comes up a lot. As someone whose job involves negotiating high value deals on a day-to-day basis (much of my job is executing mergers & acquisitions with a deal value in the region of £50 million to £10 billion), I do find this a rather ridiculous argument.

If you want to achieve something in a negotiation, you walk into the room saying "let's find a win-win deal that works for both of us".

If I walked into a room saying "I think you are all prats and I'm going to walk away unless you give me what you want", I wouldn't be able to negotiate a damn thing.

My clients would quite rightly fire me. Yet that seems to be the populist approach the Tories are advocating. It may be good old fun to sit around bashing the other countries in EU and willy waving, but it doesn't actually get you anywhere.

Yes you need to be tough at times but you treat your opposite side with respect, and you aim for the win-win rather than the lose-lose. A win-win deal is perfectly possible so let's drop the willy-waving.

In fairness, though, one should remember that the major part of the Tory rhetoric has indeed been along the lines of "let's find a win-win deal that works for both of us".

The origin of the no deal/ bad deal language was a response to remarks made in Germany by Germans (*), and subsequent bullish remarks by the EU. In my view it was a necessary response.

When the talks start I have no doubt that the nice words will be there, but each side will be cautious about pushing too far.

Edit: To clarify my post.

This is what I refer to, remarks made by Hamond:
See

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/15/philip-hammond-suggests-uk-outside-single-market-could-become-tax-haven

It is my (belief (not proven) that those remarks, resulting in taunts about bargain basements, led to May's stance on no deal / bad deal remarks.
the

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

And yet the younger generation seem to be quite happy with labour's policy of keeping the triple lock, while at the same time are up in arms about TM asking the well off boomers to pay for their own social care.

TM is just conning well off boomers. Yes you have an average house worth £250K and your social care costs you 150K. But I bet those who are worth £500K will not pay any more as there will be an unspecified upper limit. Do you really think TM will let someone with a house worth £900K to pay up to £800K on social care?

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

TM is just conning well off boomers. Yes you have an average house worth £250K and your social care costs you 150K. But I bet those who are worth £500K will not pay any more as there will be an unspecified upper limit. Do you really think TM will let someone with a house worth £900K to pay up to £800K on social care?

An upper limit sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea.

setmefree2

mrginge wrote: »

An upper limit sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea.

The upper limit will be between £50k and £75k (Dilnot). I have no idea why TM refuses to spell this out - it will lead to her throwing away the election and probably chucking our economy under a bus.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Financial Times exposes the Absurdity of Mayhem's meaningless 'no deal better than a bad deal' slogan.

if the UK shifted from EU to WTO terms, trade in goods with the EU would halve and trade in services would fall 60 per cent.

https://www.ft.com/content/83396e2a-45ef-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996

fun4everyone

But but but she was "very clear" on that.

kabayiri

Maybe the Brexit outcome will be influenced more by things like :-
- brinkmanship, and
- keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

I have noticed how affairs in Greece are sometimes reported through a lens, whereby Greeks feel a real hatred towards the EU core, as to how they have been treated.

Imagine a similar long term dislike brewing, but from a larger economic and military power anchored off the coast of mainland Europe.

Maybe this is all a bit dystopian, sure, but it's unpredictable.

What is more predictable is fudging together some kind of solution where the EU and the UK work out a way of working which is politically sellable to the voterbase on each side.

Fwiw, I find the Farron idea of backing out of leaving the EU just as unpredictable. It could turn sections of our own voters against the political class big time, and it would paint the UK as weak in the eyes of the EU for a generation or more.