** The General Election Thread **

[Psamathe]

On the radio this morning it was really highlighted (indirectly) how good our politicians are at "missing the point" and failing to understand the situation. Willetts and somebody else were discussing why the pension triple lock was wrong and Willetts said how the average pensioner was now better off than the average employee/wage earner so we no longer need the triple lock. To me he completely missed the point in that averages are the wrong thing to look at. We still have many pensioners in dire financial situation (well below the average) as well as many employed people worse than financially struggling (also well below the average). Rather than looking at averages for a group we should be addressing the incomes of the worse off pensioners AND the worse off earners. They've chosen the wrong groups. We should not be looking at "all pensioners" and "all employed" but looking at "all (very) low paid".

If our politicians are so incapable of using information in the right way, how can we ever get policies that help those most in need.

Ian

[reohn2]

If our politicians are so incapable of using information in the right way, how can we ever get policies that help those most in need.

Ian

By not voting Tory.
Unfortunately people are selfish in the extreme,and the more money the accrue the more selfish they become.......

[reohn2]

Indeed, of all the political backfires in recent times, that one's right up there!

Both sides, the members and the PLP, are merely exercising their rights under the Labour constitution.

The root of the problem is a rule change that has set the scene for a conflict between the members and the PLP, that apparently no one foresaw. As far as I remember, the change was supported across the party, from Blair to Ed Miliband.

Unintended consequences.

something our Westminster politicians seem good at creating. We deserve better than we have.

Ian

The system is broken,but no one wants to fix it.
Politicians don't because they loose out,and voters because they'd rather be on social media complaining instead of walking to the polling station and putting an X on a paper. The reason is that not much changes when they do.
I live in hope and I will walk to the polling station.

[pwa]

On the radio this morning it was really highlighted (indirectly) how good our politicians are at "missing the point" and failing to understand the situation. Willetts and somebody else were discussing why the pension triple lock was wrong and Willetts said how the average pensioner was now better off than the average employee/wage earner so we no longer need the triple lock. To me he completely missed the point in that averages are the wrong thing to look at. We still have many pensioners in dire financial situation (well below the average) as well as many employed people worse than financially struggling (also well below the average). Rather than looking at averages for a group we should be addressing the incomes of the worse off pensioners AND the worse off earners. They've chosen the wrong groups. We should not be looking at "all pensioners" and "all employed" but looking at "all (very) low paid".

If our politicians are so incapable of using information in the right way, how can we ever get policies that help those most in need.

Ian

And to add to that, it would be useful if we stopped looking at "average" pensioner incomes, by which I guess they we are talking about the mean income. That is obviously skewed by extremely wealthy individuals.

I'm not sure that focusing on the poorest alone is always a good idea, because you end up forgetting about the people just above them. Around here the poorest in need of residential care will get it for free. Those who have their own home will pay, and pay heavily. It does not matter if they got their own home through hard work and saving from a modest income over decades. Their reward for decades of frugal living is that they pay from the proceeds of selling their house. If you were to think of a good incentive not to save for your old age, this would be it.

[Psamathe]

.....
I'm not sure that focusing on the poorest alone is always a good idea, because you end up forgetting about the people just above them. Around here the poorest in need of residential care will get it for free. Those who have their own home will pay, and pay heavily. It does not matter if they got their own home through hard work and saving from a modest income over decades. Their reward for decades of frugal living is that they pay from the proceeds of selling their house. If you were to think of a good incentive not to save for your old age, this would be it.

I would agree and whilst it is a continuum to a degree, there must be something of a "cliff edge" at the lower income end, where the incomes are inadequate to provide even the basics (e.g. food AND heat). The "stepped" threshold based taxation system might be easy to understand but it does affect behaviour (e.g. house prices around the Stamp Duty thresholds.

I like the sound of a Universal Basic Income idea - though I suspect it would still end-up needing quite a few complex tweaks around the edges e.g. a 30 year old will be able to top-up their basic income (with work) significantly whilst an 80 year old might not be able to. But some 80 year olds might have significant private pension income providing that top-up whilst others wont .... and I'm not sure I understand how it would work in practice (so I'm not going as far as suggesting it is a "good idea" but rather that it sounds like there might be potential there).

Ian

[blackbike]

I'm voting tactically in this election, which means I'll be voting UKIP.

I'll still be guaranteed a pro-Leave Conservative MP, so I thought I'd just take the opportunity to show my support and thanks to Mr Farage's party for the magnificent and victorious campaign they have fought for nearly a quarter of a century.

As we won't be having any more elections to the EU pseudo-parliament this will probably be the last time I ever vote UKIP.

I wish Gina Miller's proposed 'progressive' Alliance well. A fractured, ragbag opposition of a Labour rump and slightly more Lib Dem and Green MPs will be a total shambles.

[atoz]

I agree that the polls for Corbyn are, as they say, not good. It's a bit like the condemned man waiting for a last appeal. But politics is not like "real life"- whatever that is. After Trump, you can't rule anything out.

As for an electable alternative. The right wing of the Labour Party mounted a coup and failed. It didn't help matters that the candidate they eventually came up to challenge Jez was a nonentity whose main claim to fame was his links with Big Pharma- after getting nowwhere with Angela Eagle. The best hope for the future is a younger alternative from the left. Old Blairite fossils have no credibility. There's no point appealing to Tory pensioners, since, to be blunt, they won't be around for a lot longer. Better to target young minds.

I don't think many of the MP's care- many would have lost their seats under boundary changes anyway.

It's a pity- because unlike any other political leader I can think of, Corbyn is a cyclist. He also uses public transport a lot. Whatever else you may think of the man, I think we can take it that should Mission Impossible happen and Jez becomes PM, policy and funding for cycling would change significantly for the better.

Seen any flying pigs on bicycles lately? lol

[pwa]

Any replacement for Corbyn will only win power if they take support from the Tories. That does not necessarily mean adopting a Tory agenda, but it does mean having an agenda that appeals to some who might otherwise vote Tory. Now you could try to arrive at that agenda by staying well to the left but explaining yourself better. Or you can dilute your policies to make them more palatable to the unsure. Corbyn is trying the former and losing. Blair did the latter and won. I am beginning to think that the Labour Party is spiraling into a void of insignificance, doomed never to govern again.

The notion that Tory voters are an ageing group who will die out is misguided. People tend to get more Tory as they get older, and it is likely than a good proportion of today's left of centre youth will become more right wing as they mature. That has been the experience of the past.

[old_windbag]

Their reward for decades of frugal living is that they pay from the proceeds of selling their house. If you were to think of a good incentive not to save for your old age, this would be it.

I think this is where our bnefits system fails us. I've said it before but two people can have the same money through their hands in a life, one lives with a rainy day attitude saving and living frugally, the other lives life to the max and is penniless savings/assets wise. The latter gets access to benefits and the former doesn't. Most rebates, council tax etc seem to have a £16k max savings limit and a reduction from £6k to £16k so the impact comes in from low amounts.

Perhaps we should review inheritance something that I don't feel is the god given right of offspring. If a lot of that was able to be redistributed into charities/the state in exchange for guaranteed no limits final years care instead of making divisions in the next generation fuelling house price rises etc then it may be worth considering. The universal salary idea is obtuse but again worth consideration. We need radical thinking for positive change, the benefit system started with great intent but seems to be failing its purpose. I don't think everyday politicians have the mindset for radical change they're too embedded in the system for that, cut from the same cloth.


On the green transport side I'm sure a chap in may's cabinet said "she's always on her cycle" ( quick, run, vorpals coming with a sexism telling off ).

[Psamathe]

Any replacement for Corbyn will only win power if they take support from the Tories. That does not necessarily mean adopting a Tory agenda, but it does mean having an agenda that appeals to some who might otherwise vote Tory. Now you could try to arrive at that agenda by staying well to the left but explaining yourself better. Or you can dilute your policies to make them more palatable to the unsure. Corbyn is trying the former and losing. Blair did the latter and won. I am beginning to think that the Labour Party is spiraling into a void of insignificance, doomed never to govern again.

The notion that Tory voters are an ageing group who will die out is misguided. People tend to get more Tory as they get older, and it is likely than a good proportion of today's left of centre youth will become more right wing as they mature. That has been the experience of the past.

That should not be too hard (maybe hard for Corbyn, but not too hard) given that the Conservatives have moved quite far to the right (or at least Ms May, in her overwhelming desire to stay in charge will do anything the Conservative right tell her to do). May loves talking about the less well-off but actually does nothing (and the less well off will be noticing that). And then she loves her JAMs (Just About Millionaires).

So not too hard for Labour to take some of those votes with a leader with a broader policy agenda. And that does NOT mean ignoring the vulnerable, it does NOT mean supporting zero hours contracts (because your wealthy mates make millions they don't need from them), etc.. You can still have a left oriented agenda and appeal to the more moderate middle ground.

Ian

[pwa]

It's a bit OT, but my parents have lived frugally and worked hard (dirty hands work, not overpaid desk stuff) and they now live in a tiny bungalow just right for their needs that is worth about £200K. We have done all the things we could think of to keep their assets in the family should they need residential care at some point. My wife and I put some of our own money into buying the bungalow and have our names on the deeds, and my parents spend enough to keep their savings below the threshold. All desperate unedifying stuff, but my parents have never spent much on themselves and always saw their home as something to "pass on". That means a lot to them. If they had to use their home (sorry, "our home") to fund care that others get for free it would mean all the sacrifices they have made though life would have been for nothing.

[pwa]

Any replacement for Corbyn will only win power if they take support from the Tories. That does not necessarily mean adopting a Tory agenda, but it does mean having an agenda that appeals to some who might otherwise vote Tory. Now you could try to arrive at that agenda by staying well to the left but explaining yourself better. Or you can dilute your policies to make them more palatable to the unsure. Corbyn is trying the former and losing. Blair did the latter and won. I am beginning to think that the Labour Party is spiraling into a void of insignificance, doomed never to govern again.

The notion that Tory voters are an ageing group who will die out is misguided. People tend to get more Tory as they get older, and it is likely than a good proportion of today's left of centre youth will become more right wing as they mature. That has been the experience of the past.

That should not be too hard (maybe hard for Corbyn, but not too hard) given that the Conservatives have moved quite far to the right (or at least Ms May, in her overwhelming desire to stay in charge will do anything the Conservative right tell her to do). May loves talking about the less well-off but actually does nothing (and the less well off will be noticing that). And then she loves her JAMs (Just About Millionaires).

So not too hard for Labour to take some of those votes with a leader with a broader policy agenda. And that does NOT mean ignoring the vulnerable, it does NOT mean supporting zero hours contracts (because your wealthy mates make millions they don't need from them), etc.. You can still have a left oriented agenda and appeal to the more moderate middle ground.

Ian

I agree with every word. But can Labour provide a leader that will aim for just left of the existing middle ground any more?

[Psamathe]

Any replacement for Corbyn will only win power if they take support from the Tories. That does not necessarily mean adopting a Tory agenda, but it does mean having an agenda that appeals to some who might otherwise vote Tory. Now you could try to arrive at that agenda by staying well to the left but explaining yourself better. Or you can dilute your policies to make them more palatable to the unsure. Corbyn is trying the former and losing. Blair did the latter and won. I am beginning to think that the Labour Party is spiraling into a void of insignificance, doomed never to govern again.

The notion that Tory voters are an ageing group who will die out is misguided. People tend to get more Tory as they get older, and it is likely than a good proportion of today's left of centre youth will become more right wing as they mature. That has been the experience of the past.

That should not be too hard (maybe hard for Corbyn, but not too hard) given that the Conservatives have moved quite far to the right (or at least Ms May, in her overwhelming desire to stay in charge will do anything the Conservative right tell her to do). May loves talking about the less well-off but actually does nothing (and the less well off will be noticing that). And then she loves her JAMs (Just About Millionaires).

So not too hard for Labour to take some of those votes with a leader with a broader policy agenda. And that does NOT mean ignoring the vulnerable, it does NOT mean supporting zero hours contracts (because your wealthy mates make millions they don't need from them), etc.. You can still have a left oriented agenda and appeal to the more moderate middle ground.

Ian

I agree with every word. But can Labour provide a leader that will aim for just left of the existing middle ground any more?

I don't follow the individuals and their detailed politics (pic up a bit as they become prominent, but don't know them well). I wonder about Keir Starmer. Not a vast experience as an MP, but seems to be able to keep a Shadow Cabinet position (when so many have quit), seems to be able to debate well in Parliament, to get his point across, presenting his ideas in an orderly manner, etc. But not sure how he is regarded by the PLP or the party, nor how broad and encompassing his policies would be, nor exactly where on the rather misleading left-right balance he is (and positioning somebody on such a scale often does not really say much about their policies).

Ian

[old_windbag]

If they had to use their home (sorry, "our home") to fund care that others get for free it would mean all the sacrifices they have made though life would have been for nothing.

I agree that I'd not like my efforts in life going to reward some groups in society..... but I also don't like paying into a tax system that gives me no choice in what is given out, not so much in essential benefits but in tax credits for families. Actually having a tax system where we all pay say 25% of which say 15% is fixed for health, education but with the remaining given as a choice of what you want it paid into, i.e 6 tick boxes from 10. Then I could select outside of the essential no choice tax pot the causes I want money put into. Flexible taxation, and the pot's that receive less can only pay out less.

Your parents feel they'd not want the value of their property paying for their care or going to fund people they don't feel warrant help, hence it should be passed onto their children. Fair enough but my point was that the money could be redistributed to charities of their choice for the better good of many, cancer research, heart foundation, rspca etc. All worthy causes that can benefit many of us,irrelevant of our income( cancer etc affects us all ), and not at the use of government to misuse. Always passing wealth to the next generation continues division, I certainly didn't have any wealth to pass on to myself...... would I have been hurt if my mother had finances at death she bequeathed to charities, not in the least as it would have been her choice. As it was it was nowt so that was easy to resolve. I think that court case of the daughter demanding from her mothers will made a joke of the purpose of will's, it was shameful the daughter was given even a penny.

[Cyril Haearn]

Oh no!

The Grauniad reports that Chairperson May took the decision to go to the country when she was walking near Dolgellau

Could be that she has spent more time in North Wales than Carwyn Jones