Who You Gonna Vote For?!

DomBoreal · Post by **DomBoreal** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:53 pm

OK, so I have no real idea about politics. I have always voted right. But from what I've seen Corbyn talks sense. And his ideals are sensible. But his charisma is worse than Jon Bond's. Clarets... tell me what I should do...

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:58 pm

I vote we all sit tight in our armchairs and **** it!

1968claret · Post by **1968claret** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:10 pm

Dyche

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:48 pm

Harold Wilson via Derek Akhora.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:48 pm

Dyche

DomBoreal · Post by **DomBoreal** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:54 pm

Let's be serious now...

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:56 pm

Ghost busters!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:00 am

His ideas are nice, pleasant, fluffy ones, but they aren't sensible. Broadly speaking they involves taking vast sums of money off rich people while hoping those rich people don't leave the country and take their money with them.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:09 am

dsr wrote:His ideas are nice, pleasant, fluffy ones, but they aren't sensible. Broadly speaking they involves taking vast sums of money off rich people while hoping those rich people don't leave the country and take their money with them.

Following this logic we should probably lower taxes even further or be even less pro-active when it comes to tax evasion. After all, we wouldn't want to upset the wealth creators would we? Obviously it's fine to raise VAT to pay for the necessities, because the poor don't have the option of leaving.

LeadBelly · Post by **LeadBelly** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:18 am

I'm gonna vote for Trump, he seems like a decent man with well groomed hair and a nice family. Probably got nicely polished shoes as well.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:20 am

HieronymousBoschHobs wrote:Following this logic we should probably lower taxes even further or be even less pro-active when it comes to tax evasion. After all, we wouldn't want to upset the wealth creators would we? Obviously it's fine to raise VAT to pay for the necessities, because the poor don't have the option of leaving.

You follow whatever logic you like, as long as you recognise that it isn't necessarily the same as mine. I wasn't trying to give an all-encompassing tax-raising system, just pointing out that if Corbyn decides (for example) to raise double the amount of tax from rich people, then he won't do it by doubling the tax rate for rich people.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:27 am

DomBoreal wrote:OK, so I have no real idea about politics. I have always voted right. But from what I've seen Corbyn talks sense. And his ideals are sensible. But his charisma is worse than Jon Bond's. Clarets... tell me what I should do...

Hi Dom, how many message boards are you and your team posting on? Doesn't it strike you as odd all these new posters who want to discuss politics. Someone might think there was a General Election coming up.

ksrclaret · Post by **ksrclaret** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:27 am

It's the history teacher vs the geography teacher.

Neither of whom can control the class and regularly nod off during working hours.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:39 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Dom, how many message boards are you and your team posting on? Doesn't it strike you as odd all these new posters who want to discuss politics. Someone might think there was a General Election coming up.

Mate your tinfoil hat is really snazzy, can you make me one too?

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:49 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Dom, how many message boards are you and your team posting on? Doesn't it strike you as odd all these new posters who want to discuss politics. Someone might think there was a General Election coming up.

I like it, savvyness at this time of the night, yes, that was my thought too

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:58 am

dsr wrote:His ideas are nice, pleasant, fluffy ones, but they aren't sensible. Broadly speaking they involves taking vast sums of money off rich people while hoping those rich people don't leave the country and take their money with them.

Happens every GE, this; the threat of a plutocracy undermining the "democratic will of the people" (seeing as it's in vogue these days) by somehow throwing the economy under a bus. You've got sadomasochism, macroeconomic ignorance and micro-hierarchical self-importance all rolled up into one single tick. It's quite profound.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:07 am

Spiral wrote:Happens every GE, this; the threat of a plutocracy undermining the "democratic will of the people" (seeing as it's in vogue these days) by somehow throwing the economy under a bus. You've got sadomasochism, macroeconomic ignorance and micro-hierarchical self-importance all rolled up into one single tick. It's quite profound.

What a lot of long words. You must be very clever.

But to be less profound, if you tell a very rich man that if he stays in the UK you will take a large sum of money off him, he will leave. Not all of them, but enough of them. Why did Denis Healey keep raising tax rates up and up and up to a maximum 101%? Because nobody, apart from James Herriot, was paying them. James Herriot liked living in Yorkshire so didn't leave; other top earners did.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:16 am

I think it's possible - with a little creativity - to find ways of getting the rich to pay more in tax. We could start by reversing all the tax cuts the Tories have given them these last seven years.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:16 am

dsr wrote:What a lot of long words. You must be very clever.

But to be less profound, if you tell a very rich man that if he stays in the UK you will take a large sum of money off him, he will leave. Not all of them, but enough of them. Why did Denis Healey keep raising tax rates up and up and up to a maximum 101%? Because nobody, apart from James Herriot, was paying them. James Herriot liked living in Yorkshire so didn't leave; other top earners did.

Long words? Jesus f.ucking with a capital F wept. Words illicit an abstract thought. They are but a device to articulate a thought. Christ. What I posted isn't even that pretentious, not by my standards. And you defended Boris Johnson the other day by providing practically a dictionary definition of whatever Harry Potter insult he was using against Corbyn?

You're more than welcome to argue against my position that your worldview seemingly begins and ends at offering your bumhole to a plutocracy with more wealth and power than you could ever conceive. You literally wouldn't be posting on this messageboard were you a part of it.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:20 am

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:27 am

Labour, by the way.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:00 am

dsr wrote:You follow whatever logic you like, as long as you recognise that it isn't necessarily the same as mine. I wasn't trying to give an all-encompassing tax-raising system, just pointing out that if Corbyn decides (for example) to raise double the amount of tax from rich people, then he won't do it by doubling the tax rate for rich people.

It is not my logic, but your own: the implication of saying that we should not try to tax the wealthy more because the wealthy will leave (and hence that the exchequer will lose money), is that the more you tax, the less wealthy people there will be in the country (because they may up sticks and move to somewhere more amenable to their bank balance). Therefore, it follows that the less you tax, the more wealthy people there will be in the country (because they will move here, or choose to live here, because the legal framework is amenable to their bank balance).

This is a sound argument, and it is probably why it has so many adherents. Yet it does not provide a sustainable solution.There are good reasons why Britain is more attractive to some businesses than those with laxer tax regulations: we have a mature infrastructure (in terms of law, health, education, transport etc.) and plenty of potential workers (either from Britain, the EU or further afield). Multinationals who have set up shop in less developed nations have found themselves at times in the peculiar position of doing work which is usually considered the role of government e.g. building roads, hospitals, schools and the rest. This is not out of charity, but out of necessity. Workers, among other things, need hospitals when they are ill (so that they do not die, which would result in the company having to expend on training someone else up to the job) and schools for their children (if only so that they can one day work for the local employer).

In such a framework, there is a careful balancing act to carry out: keeping taxes low on one hand and maintaining the infrastructure which makes a country attractive for investment on the other. The current government are trying to spin both plates so that they can keep themselves in a job. Yet they also know it means Britain must compete with other nations, whose electorate (if they have a voice at all) may not have the same expectations about their living standards. So, there is a very difficult task of trying to keep the people happy enough with lower standards so that cuts can be brought through which allow the British government to offer an environment for business in line with those of less prosperous nations. It is something of a catch 22 of course, because the competitive advantage wealthy Western nations have is the same infrastructure which must be gutted to attract investment.

Essentially, Britain will be on the famed 'race to the bottom' with the developing economies. Even were that path to be pursued however, in the even longer term it will not work out because living standards will begin to even out, and so too wages. Therefore, industry, which only has a finite amount of countries it can base itself in, will run out of cheap labour. They will likely find ways to continue making profit through technological advancement (AI, automation etc.) That is, of course, no good unless you are one of the few people seeing the benefits.

The reversion to nationalism across the Western world will be looked back upon as a backlash to these changes (although of course most people right now are not considering the issue so abstractly). Given the state of affairs, no government can protect British workers' living standards in the long-term. It's a global problem that will require a global response, although that seems a long way off from the present vantage point. However, cow-towing to the demands of business when the outcome is so clearly self-defeating is surely madness. Yet that is laissez-faire and the Tories will not let it go.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:17 am

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:28 am

HieronymousBoschHobs wrote:It is not my logic, but your own: the implication of saying that we should not try to tax the wealthy more because the wealthy will leave (and hence that the exchequer will lose money), is that the more you tax, the less wealthy people there will be in the country (because they may up sticks and move to somewhere more amenable to their bank balance). Therefore, it follows that the less you tax, the more wealthy people there will be in the country (because they will move here, or choose to live here, because the legal framework is amenable to their bank balance).

This is a sound argument, and it is probably why it has so many adherents. Yet it does not provide a sustainable solution.There are good reasons why Britain is more attractive to some businesses than those with laxer tax regulations: we have a mature infrastructure (in terms of law, health, education, transport etc.) and plenty of potential workers (either from Britain, the EU or further afield). Multinationals who have set up shop in less developed nations have found themselves at times in the peculiar position of doing work which is usually considered the role of government e.g. building roads, hospitals, schools and the rest. This is not out of charity, but out of necessity. Workers, among other things, need hospitals when they are ill (so that they do not die, which would result in the company having to expend on training someone else up to the job) and schools for their children (if only so that they can one day work for the local employer).

In such a framework, there is a careful balancing act to carry out: keeping taxes low on one hand and maintaining the infrastructure which makes a country attractive for investment on the other. The current government are trying to spin both plates so that they can keep themselves in a job. Yet they also know it means Britain must compete with other nations, whose electorate (if they have a voice at all) may not have the same expectations about their living standards. So, there is a very difficult task of trying to keep the people happy enough with lower standards so that cuts can be brought through which allow the British government to offer an environment for business in line with those of less prosperous nations. It is something of a catch 22 of course, because the competitive advantage wealthy Western nations have is the same infrastructure which must be gutted to attract investment.

Essentially, Britain will be on the famed 'race to the bottom' with the developing economies. Even were that path to be pursued however, in the even longer term it will not work out because living standards will being to even out, and so too wages. Therefore, industry, which only has a finite amount of countries it can base itself in, will run out of cheap labour. They will likely find ways to continue making profit through technological advancement (AI, automation etc.) That is, of course, no good unless you are one of the few people seeing the benefits.

The reversion to nationalism across the Western world will be looked back upon as a backlash to these changes (although of course most people right now are not considering the issue so abstractly). Given the state of affairs, no government can protect British workers' living standards in the long-term. It's a global problem that will require a global response, although that seems a long way off from the present vantage point. However, cow-towing to the demands of business when the outcome is so clearly self-defeating is surely madness. Yet that is laissez-faire and the Tories will not let it go.

I have no objection to your post - especially not at this time of night - but it's not answering my point. My point was that if you increase taxes on the rich, some of them will leave. The only implication was that Corbyn doesn't believe that.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:35 am

Spiral wrote:Words illicit an abstract thought. They are but a device to articulate a thought. ... What I posted isn't even that pretentious, not by my standards. And you defended Boris Johnson the other day by providing practically a dictionary definition of whatever Harry Potter insult he was using against Corbyn?

Elicit. Words elicit abstract thought a bit better if you know what they mean or how to spell them. Though I suppose the very clever way you put a full stop after the F, because you know that swear filters are meant for thickos not pseudo-intellectuals like you, proves you have some degree of native wit.

Mugwump is nothing to do with Harry Potter. (That's muggle.) And providing a definition of mugwump is not the same as defending Boris Johnson, just telling you how to spell elicit shouldn't be construed as defending Jeremy Corbyn.

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:44 am

My politics is a matter between my conscience and the ballot box.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:52 am

dsr wrote:I have no objection to your post - especially not at this time of night - but it's not answering my point. My point was that if you increase taxes on the rich, some of them will leave. The only implication was that Corbyn doesn't believe that.

Neither of us know what Corbyn actually believes. Is he really a 60s socialist dreamer who thinks that we can sit in a circle and sing our way to a better future? McDonnell is his closest ally and when he talks economics to the media he sounds like every other politician talking economics to the media (albeit with a left-wing slant). He won't get in so it is two bald men fighting over a comb territory I suppose, but Labour at least has a policy. What are the Tories actually going to do when they extend their stay for another two years?

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:53 am

Other than leading the country strongly and securely of course.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:09 am

dsr wrote:Elicit. Words elicit abstract thought a bit better if you know what they mean or how to spell them. Though I suppose the very clever way you put a full stop after the F, because you know that swear filters are meant for thickos not pseudo-intellectuals like you, proves you have some degree of native wit.

Mugwump is nothing to do with Harry Potter. (That's muggle.) And providing a definition of mugwump is not the same as defending Boris Johnson, just telling you how to spell elicit shouldn't be construed as defending Jeremy Corbyn.

I suppose a hearty pat on the back is deserved on pointing out a typo on the night I post on a football forum on the day Burnley all but secure safety in the Premier League. Yes, Elicit. Bravo. Well Done. Now how about engaging the argument? (You're more that welcome to scour my post history to find where I've used the word correctly without being inebriated on the back of a historic win).

NB, not that it really matters but I'm far younger than you and sort of grew up with Harry Potter. I'm acutely aware of my references. You're possibly too numb to realise that I was speaking derogatively of BoJo. He's essentially the twattish Slytherin grass who thinks he's above everyone else, but I digress, this is getting weird. I'm not going to make this thread any weirder than it already is. Well done on dragging medieval insults and their etymological derivation to the fore. You're doing a genuine public service.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:37 am

There wasn't an argument. You posted a pretentious bit of twaddle followed by an obnoxious foul-mouthed tirade, but you never argued anything. Try not to post when you're drunk, because people will assume you're like that all the time. (Maybe you are.)

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:44 am

There absolutely was an argument. It appears I need to dumb it down for you; it was that people have a penchant for voting against their self interest. My sincere apologies if you found my post difficult to understand. I've alluded to my pretensions on this very thread. I don't hide from them. I count just one swear-filter manoeuvred curse word from me. Foul-mouthed tirade? Precious when it suits you?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:09 pm

dsr wrote:My point was that if you increase taxes on the rich, some of them will leave.

By the same token, if you slap all your businesses with expensive trade tariffs, they will leave too, right dsr?

The entire tactic of attempting to paint Corbyn as some radical, irresponsible lunatic is completely undermined by the fact that Brexit, via the Conservative party, is far more radical and irresponsible than anything he's proposing.

Corbyn actually looks quite sensible and reasonable next to the hard right nutters who are currently dominating British politics.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:12 pm

He's definitely not sensible and reasonable but I can suppose I understand why some might think that if they ignore his blank cheque book approach

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:13 pm

HieronymousBoschHobs wrote:Mate your tinfoil hat is really snazzy, can you make me one too?

Hi Hieronymous (great user name), don't you wonder why someone has registered on mb on 29 April and first post is "who are you going to vote for?"

When I'm wearing my "tinfoil hat" I'm wondering whether this is the Russians or Tory Central HQ. It's not JC's lot because his young electoral campaign team (ex-public school boys I've heard) wouldn't stoop to that sort of thing.

Stop taking, start giving (c) Paul Waine

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:18 pm

taio wrote:He's definitely not sensible and reasonable but I can suppose I understand why some might think that if they ignore his blank cheque book approach

If there's a blank chequebook for Brexit, why can't there be a blank chequebook for rebuilding the country's infrastructure?

Like I said, any opportunity the Conservative party had to hammer Corbyn in an economic argument has been trashed by Brexit. It undermines and contradicts everything that they say.

Apparently we can just promise the world to people these days and not worry about how it will be paid for or delivered.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:25 pm

There isn't a blank cheque book for Brexit and in any case the public voted for it. Suppose your view would hold if Corbyn promised to reverse it.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:48 pm

HieronymousBoschHobs wrote:It is not my logic, but your own: the implication of saying that we should not try to tax the wealthy more because the wealthy will leave (and hence that the exchequer will lose money), is that the more you tax, the less wealthy people there will be in the country (because they may up sticks and move to somewhere more amenable to their bank balance). Therefore, it follows that the less you tax, the more wealthy people there will be in the country (because they will move here, or choose to live here, because the legal framework is amenable to their bank balance).

This is a sound argument, and it is probably why it has so many adherents. Yet it does not provide a sustainable solution.There are good reasons why Britain is more attractive to some businesses than those with laxer tax regulations: we have a mature infrastructure (in terms of law, health, education, transport etc.) and plenty of potential workers (either from Britain, the EU or further afield). Multinationals who have set up shop in less developed nations have found themselves at times in the peculiar position of doing work which is usually considered the role of government e.g. building roads, hospitals, schools and the rest. This is not out of charity, but out of necessity. Workers, among other things, need hospitals when they are ill (so that they do not die, which would result in the company having to expend on training someone else up to the job) and schools for their children (if only so that they can one day work for the local employer).

In such a framework, there is a careful balancing act to carry out: keeping taxes low on one hand and maintaining the infrastructure which makes a country attractive for investment on the other. The current government are trying to spin both plates so that they can keep themselves in a job. Yet they also know it means Britain must compete with other nations, whose electorate (if they have a voice at all) may not have the same expectations about their living standards. So, there is a very difficult task of trying to keep the people happy enough with lower standards so that cuts can be brought through which allow the British government to offer an environment for business in line with those of less prosperous nations. It is something of a catch 22 of course, because the competitive advantage wealthy Western nations have is the same infrastructure which must be gutted to attract investment.

Essentially, Britain will be on the famed 'race to the bottom' with the developing economies. Even were that path to be pursued however, in the even longer term it will not work out because living standards will begin to even out, and so too wages. Therefore, industry, which only has a finite amount of countries it can base itself in, will run out of cheap labour. They will likely find ways to continue making profit through technological advancement (AI, automation etc.) That is, of course, no good unless you are one of the few people seeing the benefits.

The reversion to nationalism across the Western world will be looked back upon as a backlash to these changes (although of course most people right now are not considering the issue so abstractly). Given the state of affairs, no government can protect British workers' living standards in the long-term. It's a global problem that will require a global response, although that seems a long way off from the present vantage point. However, cow-towing to the demands of business when the outcome is so clearly self-defeating is surely madness. Yet that is laissez-faire and the Tories will not let it go.

Hi Hieronymous, I guess you are aware that when Hollande was elected President in France and increased their tax rates on high earners that many of the high earners moved away from France. Several moved to London at that time.

You might not remember the 1970s in Britain. Labour Gov't tax rates included 83% on earned income plus 15% extra on unearned income, top rate of tax 98%. Of course, anyone who was close to being taxed at these ridiculous rates did everything they could to avoid them, again including moving away from the UK.

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher was elected - and reduced income tax to 60%. The UK economy started to recover immediately. As tax rates were lowered the tax collected increased.

So, sustainable taxation policies have got to be stable. They cannot be a "soak the rich" approach. There is a limit to how much you can tax higher earners - above this limit you will always collect less tax (and never more). And, a sustainable UK welfare state depends on sustainable taxation policies.

You make an interesting analysis of economic developments around the world. There are some tremendous prospects of improved living standards in a number of countries. Yes, it is natural for companies to seek to undertake "high volume, labour intensive" activities in countries where employment costs are lower. We should all understand that if we grew up in Lancashire: the cotton industry moved to a number of other countries. Often, this is not the existing companies moving though, but new companies being founded in those countries, in part to supply the growing demand in their country and secondly to meet the demand for "good value" products in other countries. Who would have thought that Jaguar Land Rover would be owned by Tata, an Indian company, and would now being positioned to compete with the German quality motor manufacturers.

The global problem is the poverty that continues to exist in too many countries. None of these countries are in Europe or anywhere in the "developed world."

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Sun May 14, 2017 7:05 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Hieronymous, I guess you are aware that when Hollande was elected President in France and increased their tax rates on high earners that many of the high earners moved away from France. Several moved to London at that time.

You might not remember the 1970s in Britain. Labour Gov't tax rates included 83% on earned income plus 15% extra on unearned income, top rate of tax 98%. Of course, anyone who was close to being taxed at these ridiculous rates did everything they could to avoid them, again including moving away from the UK.

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher was elected - and reduced income tax to 60%. The UK economy started to recover immediately. As tax rates were lowered the tax collected increased.

So, sustainable taxation policies have got to be stable. They cannot be a "soak the rich" approach. There is a limit to how much you can tax higher earners - above this limit you will always collect less tax (and never more). And, a sustainable UK welfare state depends on sustainable taxation policies.

You make an interesting analysis of economic developments around the world. There are some tremendous prospects of improved living standards in a number of countries. Yes, it is natural for companies to seek to undertake "high volume, labour intensive" activities in countries where employment costs are lower. We should all understand that if we grew up in Lancashire: the cotton industry moved to a number of other countries. Often, this is not the existing companies moving though, but new companies being founded in those countries, in part to supply the growing demand in their country and secondly to meet the demand for "good value" products in other countries. Who would have thought that Jaguar Land Rover would be owned by Tata, an Indian company, and would now being positioned to compete with the German quality motor manufacturers.

The global problem is the poverty that continues to exist in too many countries. None of these countries are in Europe or anywhere in the "developed world."

These are all good arguments. I am not an economist, and I cannot counter your arguments on those grounds. That does not rule out the possiblity that someone with a better understanding of the technicalities could dismiss them. I think there are people with more expertise than myself (and, not intending any offense, yourself too) who could argue, for example, that the failures of Hollande's government do not stem only from his taxation policy (and indeed that the tax band he targeted was more a political gesture than a practical one), also that Thatcher's economic successes were the first step along a rickety path where the budget for popular public services was reduced by outsourcing to private firms who provide a more cost-effective service. That these firms may not provide the quality of service the populace expect is, of course, the political issue at hand. These are the arguments which would be put against your position, but (like a true lefty!) I do not have the data to back them up. They are complex issues, and I think the sensible thing to do is to leave them to those who have the time and expertise to properly study them.

So, I will take a different tact. We can talk about the economy, but we always predicate those conversations on what is 'good'. So even if we are utterly pragmatic, we will say that 'it is good when GDP rises, and bad when it doesn't. Yet, even as pragmatists, we have to admit that such-and-such a political arrangement is beneficial to us, but not to others, even if it is one which, for example, favours those who work hard, and does not favour those who seek to live off state benefits. Such an arrangement is what the Tories are offering to the people: they say, if you work hard, you will get your just desserts. Now this is not an economic proposition - as I've alluded to, none of us (I assume at least) are experts in that area, and it is, at any rate, a questionable claim - so it is a moral one. If it is a moral proposition, then we have to test it against reality as we would any other. 'Murderers are punished' is a moral proposition which often holds true. We accept that proposition because it holds true. Party politics aside, does anything Theresa May say hold true in that way? It seems to me that at present she talks a lot about future circumstances, and she cannot confirm what they will be or how she will respond. Meanwhile, the country carries, and this is implicitly approved by her government (for surely she disagreed with the state of the nation, she, as the most politically powerful person in the country, would change it).

I feel a bit embarrassed making this argument because it seems overly-intellectual but the way I see it is that, when you look into it closely, the Tories are offering nothing other than what we have now. The question then is does anyone think this is a sustainable, practical way of running a country? Even if you're averse to Labour's solutions, it seems bizarre to suggest the Tories have them.

Claret&Green · Post by **Claret&Green** » Sun May 14, 2017 7:26 am

I shall be voting for no one, they are all a bunch of expletives who are in it to screw us and get what they can for themselves. Only form of democracy that was ever fair was the original Ancient Greek way, where government was chosen by lots, if you were chosen to serve you didn't screwover others coz you knew they'd do it to you when it was their turn.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sun May 14, 2017 7:34 am

Tory first time in my life then if they do a U turn on Brexit essentials I will then turn to whoever the new party that will emerge may be.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sun May 14, 2017 9:22 am

I'm going to vote for whoever the sun and daily mail tell me to.

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Sun May 14, 2017 9:30 am

Michael Keane for me

Marney&Mee · Post by **Marney&Mee** » Sun May 14, 2017 9:46 am

dermotdermot wrote:My politics is a matter between my conscience and the ballot box.

Yeah, but who will you be voting for?

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sun May 14, 2017 10:10 am

Just been watching the Andrew Marr show.

Corbyn was filmed in 2011 making a speech and saying that NATO was a threat.

Emily Thornbury replied that Jeremy 'was on a journey' and politicians are entitled to change their minds.

He wasn't a hothead niaive student when he said it, he had grey hair and had been an MP for 25? years FFS.

Politicians can change their mind but that's one hell of a transformation......

Pieater2 · Post by **Pieater2** » Sun May 14, 2017 10:36 am

Are you going to vote for charisma or sensible ideas?

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sun May 14, 2017 10:47 am

It is very clear that JC is a massive economic and actual security risk to this country. If you are a Labour supporter, other than the far left wing, is it not better for a tory landslide this time, so that a new centre left party can be formed asap when JC refuses to stand down?

There is a rocky road ahead on the economy, health and social care and possible turmoil in the hapless Europe due to the invasion of economic migrants from mainly Africa. Plenty of scope for a well led centre party to put up effective, credible opposition and hopeully see off the dangerous SNP.

wickdkewlclaret · Post by **wickdkewlclaret** » Sun May 14, 2017 10:50 am

I've done a complete U-turn!

Taxing more than 50% is completely wrong, therefore I am voting Conservatives. As I aspire to be in that earning bracket, I need to protect my earning potential.

More money for me and my family in the future far outways me possibly giving an extra 25% to the rest of society.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sun May 14, 2017 10:51 am

dsr wrote:His ideas are nice, pleasant, fluffy ones, but they aren't sensible. Broadly speaking they involves taking vast sums of money off rich people while hoping those rich people don't leave the country and take their money with them.

Plenty of rich already doing this, DSR

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun May 14, 2017 10:55 am

I've always voted Labour and will again in the sure and certain knowledge of defeat, and the hope that this time Corbyn has the decency to go, and is not intent on killing off the Party for sectional advantage.
If he stays I fancy I shall stay and fight him and his ilk until such time that a viable leader emerges again.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun May 14, 2017 11:00 am

What's needed is Labour to take enough of a hammering to rid itself of the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. Because the country needs credible opposition that hold the government to account and be a genuine alternative