the snap general election thread

setmefree2

Well i'm off to vote - I'm probably going to vote Green - I live in Ealing Southall - LP majority of 20,000 plus. The only difference I can make today is to help our great Green candidate get his deposit back.

chucknorris

setmefree2 wrote: »

Tbf - never understood the joy of fox hunting - what is all that about?

I'm a Tory voter, but I despise fox hunting. Overall I was a big fan of Cameron, but his boast of killing two deer at once, before they can run away really infuriates me. I don't know what fox hunting is all about, if I had to guess I would say a combination of lack of empathy, being insensitive, cruelty and ignorance.

I remember once in convent garden I was putting money in the collection tin for 'fox hunting' and I suddenly realised that they might actually be supporting fox hunting, rather than opposing it. So I said 'hang on a minute, are you supporting fox hunting or against it' he looked worried by my instant change of demeanour, but as it turned out they were against fox hunting.

Herzlos

setmefree2 wrote: »

By the way - what's all this free breakfast crap - when did parents stop being able to put cereal in a bowl and add milk?

When they couldn't afford the fridge/cereal/milk?
When they work night shifts and can't supervise the kids going to school?
When they just don't care?

Having a family member teach in a school where a lot of that happened, quite often the only decent meals the kids ate were breakfast/lunch at school, and giving them some breakfast helped them learn a lot better throughout the day. Do you really object to helping those kids out with a slice of toast in the morning?

Why should everyone get a free breakfast? Because it costs absolutely sod all to provide and helps them out. It also prevents the struggling kids from being singled out as needing help. And kids learn better when they've eaten.

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm a Tory voter, but I despise fox hunting. Overall I was a big fan of Cameron, but his boast of killing two deer at once, before they can run away really infuriates me. I don't know what fox hunting is all about, if I had to guess I would say a combination of lack of empathy, being insensitive, cruelty and ignorance.

I remember once in convent garden I was putting money in the collection tin for 'fox hunting' and I suddenly realised that they might actually be supporting fox hunting, rather than opposing it. So I said 'hang on a minute, are you supporting fox hunting or against it' he looked worried by my instant change of demeanour, but as it turned out they were against fox hunting.

i did not know that about Cameron. Killing for fun just seems so wrong. but then there is a very fine line between hitler and someone "normal".

Herzlos

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

If you look at the time and money ti took to deport Hamza for example - you might feel that aspects of the well-intended present favours terrorists and they'd like to apply for derogations to adjust pieces that work for the extremists and not the innocents who have rights too.

And they still managed to deport him. I'd rather we wasted a bit of money on some high profile cases to keep the rest of it. There's lots of it that benefits us in ways we take for granted.

If their aim is to lock up anyone and everyone - I am sure there will be a massive backlash and they won't get such things through.

But that'll happen long after it's gone through, and we won't have the rights to do anything about it. Scrapping adherence to the act largely gives them carte blanche to pick and choose which bits of it they want to mimic, and we'll have precisely zero say in what those are. We'll be told it's needed to fight terrorism, and that we've just to trust that they won't do anything bad with their new powers.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

But that'll happen long after it's gone through, and we won't have the rights to do anything about it.

Vote in a government that will repeal the change? Unless they're taking away the vote and moving to a dictatorship. Your logic is sound.....

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

When they couldn't afford the fridge/cereal/milk?
When they work night shifts and can't supervise the kids going to school?
When they just don't care?

Having a family member teach in a school where a lot of that happened, quite often the only decent meals the kids ate were breakfast/lunch at school, and giving them some breakfast helped them learn a lot better throughout the day. Do you really object to helping those kids out with a slice of toast in the morning?

Why should everyone get a free breakfast? Because it costs absolutely sod all to provide and helps them out. It also prevents the struggling kids from being singled out as needing help. And kids learn better when they've eaten.

Go to any poor area at teatime and notice the roaring trade done by costly takeaways. My mate is a surveyor for Dominos, they constantly target this demographic, and Dominos are not cheap.

It mainly comes down to welfareism inculcating irresponsibility. I grew up very poor, our Mum made cheap wholesome stews and froze them.

Labour will only exacipate the excuse making culture and in effect dim the horizons of more children. Welfare begets welfare and turns some people into dependency consumers.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

not wasting money of free university places for every Tom !!!! and Harry

See I don't get this, but then we have free university up here and it's great. We haven't plunged into any kind of debt fueled anarchy.

Isn't having an educated population a good thing?
Don't a huge number of graduates have their debt written off anyway?
Isn't there a lot of money wasted administering the whole fee scheme?

Since a large chunk of it's never going to be paid back anyway, and having to be paid for by the taxpayer, why not just make it free for everyone and cut out all the hassle?
Those that get a good job out of it will pay tax like everyone else over their entire working career, rather than having to pay 9% of their salary above £21k for the first 10 years of their adult life, making it hard for them to get on the property ladder etc.
Those that don't get a good job wouldn't be paying anyway.

I had a minimal student loan, maybe £4k in loans over my course and it took 3 years to pay off from a decent job, and then I could spend the money elsewhere. If I had to borrow for my fees, I'd have been borrowing £32k and I'd still be paying it back 11 years later.

Though to be fair, if we did have to pay fees to go to uni, a lot of the people I knew wouldn't have done, and would be working minimum wage somewhere instead of paying 40% tax.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Go to any poor area at teatime and notice the roaring trade done by costly takeaways. My mate is a surveyor for Dominos, they constantly target this demographic, and Dominos are not cheap.

You mean go to any area around teatime and notice the roaring trade done by takeaways?

Or do you think takeaways are more prolific in poor areas, and are you just extrapolating that in, say, a town with a population of 15,000 (mine), that a total of 7 takeaways can sustain the bulk of the population? That'd be nearly 2,000 meals a night, each?

Or are you just assuming that people treating themselves to a weekly kebab or don't have time to cook, that everyone is buying junk food all the time?

The reality is that whilst some people buy a lot of junk food, those aren't the poorest, but likely the busy working/middle class who are doing it out of convenience. The actual poor, those who are needing the school meals, are likely sharing a loaf of bread, frozen pizza or something from a clearance isle. On the rare occasion they use a takeaway it'll be for a single bag of chips.

Have you personally, been in a takeaway and had a look at the people that are there, or you just assuming that because a dominos does well in an area with a low average wage, that it's because poor people can afford to spend £20 a night on pizza?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Vote in a government that will repeal the change? Unless they're taking away the vote and moving to a dictatorship. Your logic is sound.....

That's only guaranteed by A3 of the HRA: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-3-first-protocol-right-free-elections

If they scrap it, which we welcome because someone it'll help with terrorists, then there's nothing stopping them changing the way we vote, because terrorism.

I'm not saying that's what'll happen now, but it's the thin end of the wedge, and we're giving a future government the ability to do these things later. Who knows what the PM in 2037 will want to do with the ability to change these things?