The General Election in the United Kingdom

[P.K.]

On 5/24/2024 at 10:24 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

It was childish and pathetic but ,given the perpetrator, one of your lot we shouldn’t really be surprised.

You mentioned it first...

[Non-Believer]

A policy tailored to appeal not to the young who will be directly affected, but the older, middle-class voters.

Tory cynicism at its best.

 

[VikingRaider]

10 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

A policy tailored to appeal not to the young who will be directly affected, but the older, middle-class voters.

Tory cynicism at its best.

 

Giving votes to 16 year old who haven't the first idea about what actually goes on and are more likely to vote socialist.

Labour cynicism at its best.

[RecklessAbandon]

7 minutes ago, VikingRaider said:

Giving votes to 16 year old who haven't the first idea about what actually goes on and are more likely to vote socialist.

Labour cynicism at its best.

And people wonder why the young are disaffected.

Treated like idiots (mainly by the people who bought into the Brexit lies), systematically removed from the housing market, forced to pay ludicrous rents, carrying massive student debts that others before them didn't have, losing the right to freedom of movement and employment that others had for decades and now the Torys want to force them to volunteer (I know, its as dumb as it sounds) to join the Army or become nurses (two professions which the Tories have completely gutted for decades).

Successive Tory governments have removed social programs for the youth, made it harder to be a working parent and blame all of societies ills on young people.

Rather than worrying about giving votes to 16 year olds, I'd be more interested in giving over 50's a cognitive test to see if they can parse and understand basic facts rather than voting based off what the fella from Weatherspoons tells them.

 

[RecklessAbandon]

Also, lets think this "Bring Back National Service" policy through (the Tories clearly haven't).

What are the potential ramifications of "non-compliance"?

Fines?  Who will you fine?  The 18 year old is unlike to have sufficient funds to pay a fine, so you'll have to fine the parents.  That is a good way to increase the number of people who don't like the Tories.

Prison?  Considering the Tories have gutted the prison service to the point where over crowding is rampant and prison staff are woefully understaffed, that won't work.  Unless they plan to build more prisons and employ more prison staff (or maybe they can get other press ganged youth to staff it), where would they put them?

This smacks of appealing to the kind of people who bought into the sovereignty lies of Brexit.

Edited May 27 by RecklessAbandon

[The Phantom]

On 5/27/2024 at 11:28 AM, RecklessAbandon said:

Also, lets think this "Bring Back National Service" policy through (the Tories clearly haven't).

What are the potential ramifications of "non-compliance"?

Fines?  

Prison?  

Neither.  The sensible route would be removal of the benefits of being a British Citizen i.e. Passport, benefits.  Or like Switzerland, slightly higher taxes. 

Or lets not just consider the stick angle.  There could be a carrot.  Like the US, after x years of service the Govt will pay for your Uni fees. 

Edited May 28 by The Phantom

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

Neither.  The sensible route would be removal of the benefits of being a British Citizen i.e. Passport, benefits.  Or like Switzerland, slightly higher taxes. 

Or lets not just consider the stick angle.  There could be a carrot.  Like the US, after x years of service the Govt will pay for your Uni fees. 

They won't propose a carrot though as they don't have the money to fund the proposed scheme now (part of the funding will apparently come from closing tax loopholes which makes you wonder why this Government haven't done that already).

The example of paying slightly higher taxes would be a sensible approach but this Government won't put that on the table as they are trying (badly) to position themselves as a low tax party.

[The Phantom]

8 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

They won't propose a carrot though as they don't have the money to fund the proposed scheme now (part of the funding will apparently come from closing tax loopholes which makes you wonder why this Government haven't done that already).

The example of paying slightly higher taxes would be a sensible approach but this Government won't put that on the table as they are trying (badly) to position themselves as a low tax party.

If the tax loop hole closing are the recently announced non-dom and Trust changes, the overall view of this by anyone not in either the current or likely future UK Govt, is that they will actually encourage the rich to leave the UK for elsewhere and will have the opposite effect on overall tax income.  Something I'm inclined to agree with. 

[La Colombe]

 

 

[manxman1980]

18 hours ago, The Phantom said:

If the tax loop hole closing are the recently announced non-dom and Trust changes, the overall view of this by anyone not in either the current or likely future UK Govt, is that they will actually encourage the rich to leave the UK for elsewhere and will have the opposite effect on overall tax income.  Something I'm inclined to agree with. 

I think you have moved the discussion to a different topic but...

It's interesting that a Party which has been in power for over a decade is only now talking (not doing) about closing tax loopholes.  I can't help but feel this is something they deliberately left alone until as it benefits them and their mates.  Its only come up now as a way to fund their crazy national service scheme.

Both seem intended to win votes from the working/middle class voters on the right.  

As for the view that people will leave the country as a result of closing loopholes...  I hate to break it to you buy many of the wealthy already have.  James Dyson and Sir Jim Ratcliffe to give two examples off the top of my head.  You also have the likes of the Barclay Brothers and Viscount Rothermere who would be imapcted by the changes and aa a result use there newspapers to spread the view that its a bad thing to do.  There will be many others too.

[The Phantom]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

I think you have moved the discussion to a different topic but...

It's interesting that a Party which has been in power for over a decade is only now talking (not doing) about closing tax loopholes.  I can't help but feel this is something they deliberately left alone until as it benefits them and their mates.  Its only come up now as a way to fund their crazy national service scheme.

Both seem intended to win votes from the working/middle class voters on the right.  

As for the view that people will leave the country as a result of closing loopholes...  I hate to break it to you buy many of the wealthy already have.  James Dyson and Sir Jim Ratcliffe to give two examples off the top of my head.  You also have the likes of the Barclay Brothers and Viscount Rothermere who would be imapcted by the changes and aa a result use there newspapers to spread the view that its a bad thing to do.  There will be many others too.

Dyson, Ratcliffe and Rothmere are all UK born and bred, so wouldn't have benefitted from the UK Non Dom (worldwide income) regime.  Correct that Dyson and Ratcliffe have left the UK but Rothmere is still resident.  The Barclay brothers bought a small Channel Island in the 90s and were resident there.  None of them would have been partaking in tax breaks that the Govt has recently been threatening to close, to raise extra revenue. 

[Declan]

re Farage's challenge. Sunak would be mad to accept that debate. The incumbent should never get into a debate with the insurgent. Unless the insurgent is winning.  Debate with Farage would only give Reform credibility and that will take votes from the Tories. 

We wants to force Starmer into a debate. 

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

re Farage's challenge. Sunak would be mad to accept that debate. The incumbent should never get into a debate with the insurgent. Unless the insurgent is winning.  Debate with Farage would only give Reform credibility and that will take votes from the Tories. 

We wants to force Starmer into a debate. 

If PMQ's is anything to go by even Farage would gain ground on Sunak.

Tice et al know that "immigration" was the biggest driver in the EU referendum hence making it the central tenet of their "manifesto". Can't fault the logic.

As successive tory Home Secretaries have made it harder and harder for folks to claim asylum their "policies" are actually the cause of driving up the numbers of boat people arriving. Sunak can't stop them so he's a sitting duck for unscrupulous right-wingers like Farage.

[manxman1980]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

re Farage's challenge. Sunak would be mad to accept that debate. The incumbent should never get into a debate with the insurgent. Unless the insurgent is winning.  Debate with Farage would only give Reform credibility and that will take votes from the Tories. 

We wants to force Starmer into a debate. 

Not seen the story but why would Sunak agree to a debate with Farage in the run up to the General Election.  Farage is not evening standing as an MP for his party.

That would mean Farage can spout whatever nonsense he wants whilst Sunak would be stuck trying to sounds reasonably legitimate.

[Declan]

It’s further up this page.