Election prediction time

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

You know there aren't not that many people earning that much right?  You won't raise many billions that way.

 

Compared to the annual tax income, you're right, it isn't much at all. Hence the words "for a start". It must be part of a suite of solutions, as is the case with any problem this big.

 

Whether or not that is part of such a solution, the fact remains that such a solution needs to be found - public services need to improve and long term infrastructure projects need to be funded and completed. That's not just moral duty to grant a society less divided and stratified in terms of quality of life, that's a matter of long term survival of things as they are.

 

(I keep making that last point because it appears to be one some folks either don't know about or deliberately miss because it scares them or they don't care at all about the future.)

Edited 9 July by leicsmac

[Dahnsouff]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Or you could encourage people who can afford it to use private services like they do in Australia.  You know, like schools and healthcare.

Interesting, how is this incentivised? Same services but at cost I assume, otherwise you have the same two tier system we see here, no?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Braverman’s gone for the hate vote. Vile woman.

 

 

In your opinion, what is “the hate vote” and how does this speech indicate that she is going for it?
 

What exactly makes her a “vile woman”? 

[Foxdiamond]

12 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Mate the average uk citizen is already taxed to high heaven, and the country is still bankrupt.
What are you afraid of in tightening non-Dom rules and taxing carried interest???? 

I understand Labour are going to be far more robust in clamping down on tax avoidance by some of the most wealthy. Some of the figures of lost revenue is eye watering. 

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

Braverman’s gone for the hate vote. Vile woman.

 

 

One of the lone voices of reason from that side of the fence over the last 14 years

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

23 minutes ago, Daggers said:

One of the lone voices of reason from that side of the fence over the last 14 years

 

 

Why dont she just join Reform.party

[Robo61]

6 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Why dont she just join Reform.party

She will if and when she believes that's where the power lies,  just as Truss did by first leaving the LDs and then crossing to be a born again brexiteer.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

She will if and when she believes that's where the power lies,  just as Truss did by first leaving the LDs and then crossing to be a born again brexiteer.

Pretty much, yeah. Those who want power will hitch themselves to what they think is the easiest way to grasp it.

 

It's possible she isn't raging anti-LGBT herself, but that's of little consequence here IMO because she rather obviously enables and abets those who clearly are, which has no place in a supposedly advanced society.

[Dunge]

2 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

In your opinion, what is “the hate vote” and how does this speech indicate that she is going for it?
 

What exactly makes her a “vile woman”? 

I feel I’m going to regret replying to this but here we go:

 

For background, I come from a position of not being a trans campaigner or anything like that. I mostly stay away from that conversation when it arises on this forum because I prefer to spend my time reading what people put, judging whether it holds up. In particular, I do have questions myself about whether (or rather what) treatment is right for under 18s on the matter. Some people on here have presented scientific papers on it; I haven’t been convinced by any yet but do acknowledge there are young people who are genuinely exploring and seeking to find out about themselves.

Long story short: I’m kind of in the middle here.

 

But Suella Braverman uses the word “mutilate”. Think about that for a moment. She doesn’t use that word by accident. It is an emotive word, just like other quietly emotive words within that speech, but let’s focus on “mutilate” because that’s the crux of it. This is a clearly evocative word. It’s a word that clearly implies that trans treatment is child abuse. We know how people around the country respond to that. This is not treating the issue with sensitivity, this is driving a bus straight through the middle with “child abusers” written on it. I can’t think of any greater emotional call to arms in this country than that.

 

I appreciate there will be people who hold this view in the country. But is it really the role of a Conservative politician - a prospective leadership candidate no less - to stoke the fires in that way? She’ll say she’s standing up for a viewpoint. But at what cost to others - the whole subject needs calming down and reviewing, not having more petrol poured onto the flames.

 

And unfortunately with Braverman, this isn’t an isolated incident. She shows no care for people. She shows no sensitivity. She shows no interest in unity or working together for the common good. She doesn’t try to present a meaningful discussion on an issue, just a black-and-white “We’re this side and people over there are the enemy”. To paraphrase, she would see the world burn if she could be queen of the ashes.

[StanSP]

Does anyone have any concerns or gripes about the new cabinet that Starmer has chosen? 

 

Understand generally it's been met positively. Anyone not keen on a certain minister? 

[harpendenfox]

23 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I feel I’m going to regret replying to this but here we go:

 

For background, I come from a position of not being a trans campaigner or anything like that. I mostly stay away from that conversation when it arises on this forum because I prefer to spend my time reading what people put, judging whether it holds up. In particular, I do have questions myself about whether (or rather what) treatment is right for under 18s on the matter. Some people on here have presented scientific papers on it; I haven’t been convinced by any yet but do acknowledge there are young people who are genuinely exploring and seeking to find out about themselves.

Long story short: I’m kind of in the middle here.

 

But Suella Braverman uses the word “mutilate”. Think about that for a moment. She doesn’t use that word by accident. It is an emotive word, just like other quietly emotive words within that speech, but let’s focus on “mutilate” because that’s the crux of it. This is a clearly evocative word. It’s a word that clearly implies that trans treatment is child abuse. We know how people around the country respond to that. This is not treating the issue with sensitivity, this is driving a bus straight through the middle with “child abusers” written on it. I can’t think of any greater emotional call to arms in this country than that.

 

I appreciate there will be people who hold this view in the country. But is it really the role of a Conservative politician - a prospective leadership candidate no less - to stoke the fires in that way? She’ll say she’s standing up for a viewpoint. But at what cost to others - the whole subject needs calming down and reviewing, not having more petrol poured onto the flames.

 

And unfortunately with Braverman, this isn’t an isolated incident. She shows no care for people. She shows no sensitivity. She shows no interest in unity or working together for the common good. She doesn’t try to present a meaningful discussion on an issue, just a black-and-white “We’re this side and people over there are the enemy”. To paraphrase, she would see the world burn if she could be queen of the ashes.

You've expressed this so well, in my opinion. She's simply looking to stoke clickbait culture war arguments, rather than trying to resolve a hugely emotive and complex topic. 

 

You should write more often on important stuff.

Edited 9 July by harpendenfox
additional text

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I feel I’m going to regret replying to this but here we go:

 

For background, I come from a position of not being a trans campaigner or anything like that. I mostly stay away from that conversation when it arises on this forum because I prefer to spend my time reading what people put, judging whether it holds up. In particular, I do have questions myself about whether (or rather what) treatment is right for under 18s on the matter. Some people on here have presented scientific papers on it; I haven’t been convinced by any yet but do acknowledge there are young people who are genuinely exploring and seeking to find out about themselves.

Long story short: I’m kind of in the middle here.

 

But Suella Braverman uses the word “mutilate”. Think about that for a moment. She doesn’t use that word by accident. It is an emotive word, just like other quietly emotive words within that speech, but let’s focus on “mutilate” because that’s the crux of it. This is a clearly evocative word. It’s a word that clearly implies that trans treatment is child abuse. We know how people around the country respond to that. This is not treating the issue with sensitivity, this is driving a bus straight through the middle with “child abusers” written on it. I can’t think of any greater emotional call to arms in this country than that.

 

I appreciate there will be people who hold this view in the country. But is it really the role of a Conservative politician - a prospective leadership candidate no less - to stoke the fires in that way? She’ll say she’s standing up for a viewpoint. But at what cost to others - the whole subject needs calming down and reviewing, not having more petrol poured onto the flames.

 

And unfortunately with Braverman, this isn’t an isolated incident. She shows no care for people. She shows no sensitivity. She shows no interest in unity or working together for the common good. She doesn’t try to present a meaningful discussion on an issue, just a black-and-white “We’re this side and people over there are the enemy”. To paraphrase, she would see the world burn if she could be queen of the ashes.

Spot on.

 

Also:

 

[Sampson]

Post-2016 referendum continues to show a country hugely divided by age. 
 

Actually wonder if Lab-LibDem-Greens created a voting block as happens in many mainland European countries whether you’d ever be able to get them out of power for generations. 

[urban.spaceman]

Labour should get him to defect for a laugh.

 

 

[Daggers]

3 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

In your opinion, what is “the hate vote” and how does this speech indicate that she is going for it?
 

What exactly makes her a “vile woman”? 

She:

• enjoys pineapple on pizza
• remains in the middle lane after overtaking
• parks across two bays
• tells public servants she pays their wages when complaining
• discusses the end of TV dramas before everyone has the reasonable opportunity to watch them
• keeps her shoes on when visiting someone's home
• constantly licks her fingers when eating a donut
• remains at the till discussing the weather after paying
• places her bag on the seat next to her on the train
• replies to a text while in conversation with someone else
• always stands on the wrong side of an escalator
• picks up a croissant with her hand in Lidl and puts it back with the others
• stops without warning or reason when walking by shops causing people to trip by her
• uses both arm rests on a plane and stands the second it lands on the runway
• pushes onto a bus before anyone has been able to get off
• microwaves fish pie at work
• insists on showing everyone pictures of her children as babies on her mobile
• Writes Answers To Questions By Capitalising Every Word
• eats crunchy or rustling food at the cinema, discussing it loudly with someone else, while texting
• spends an entire train journey choosing a ring tone
• spends entire meetings making click noises with her biro
• will sit right next to you in an empty waiting room

There are other reasons why she's a vile woman - but you can probably work those out for yourself and thereby answer your other questions.

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

In your opinion, what is “the hate vote” and how does this speech indicate that she is going for it?
 

What exactly makes her a “vile woman”? 

probably the fact that she's using deliberately inflammatory and false language. Like let's be very clear about this, trans healthcare in the UK for under 18s is puberty blockers at most and that's if you're one of the couple of hundred people who've managed to get through all the hurdles, and even then the outgoing health secretary put a temporary ban in place which Streeting has indicated his desire to extend - in reality, the totality of transition for most under 18s is a change of name and of presentation (haircut, clothing etc). Presenting this as mutilation is not neutral behaviour, it's a deliberate attempt to portray trans people as inherently predatory towards children and cannot be taken independently from the push from the far right to turn groomer into a slur for LGBT people, which creates an environment where things like the murder of Brianna Ghey, and the knife attack in Stockton last week, occur. 

 

she's trying to create an environment where hate crimes are common place and have a riled up base behind her. pretty sure any reasonable person would recognise that as gunning for votes by hate.

[David Hankey]

I see the new Labour Government are going to drop the "levelling up" phrase.

 

In the grand scheme of things does this really matter as a great number of folk will continue to believe they have been left behind in society.

[urban.spaceman]

Please tell me there’s at least one candidate called Al Gorithm

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

6 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I see the new Labour Government are going to drop the "levelling up" phrase.

 

In the grand scheme of things does this really matter as a great number of folk will continue to believe they have been left behind in society.

They have to drop it, as it will now only be associated with Tory corruption, lies and failure, and hopefully after the COVID inquiry, convicted criminals.

 

 

[David Hankey]

19 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

They have to drop it, as it will now only be associated with Tory corruption, lies and failure, and hopefully after the COVID inquiry, convicted criminals.

 

 

But I thought people, particularly in the North, had been crying out for this for years.

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

But I thought people, particularly in the North, had been crying out for this for years.

Genuinely not sure what the point your trying to make is. 

 

They are dropping the leveling up name, not the leveling up objectives. Or at least that's what I can make of it. 

[RobHawk]

Reading suellas speech is in stark contrast to the largely positive grown up start to government by the Labour party. 

 

It's amazing really the difference between the two parties and shows why we need a labour government right now

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

I feel I’m going to regret replying to this but here we go:

 

For background, I come from a position of not being a trans campaigner or anything like that. I mostly stay away from that conversation when it arises on this forum because I prefer to spend my time reading what people put, judging whether it holds up. In particular, I do have questions myself about whether (or rather what) treatment is right for under 18s on the matter. Some people on here have presented scientific papers on it; I haven’t been convinced by any yet but do acknowledge there are young people who are genuinely exploring and seeking to find out about themselves.

Long story short: I’m kind of in the middle here.

 

But Suella Braverman uses the word “mutilate”. Think about that for a moment. She doesn’t use that word by accident. It is an emotive word, just like other quietly emotive words within that speech, but let’s focus on “mutilate” because that’s the crux of it. This is a clearly evocative word. It’s a word that clearly implies that trans treatment is child abuse. We know how people around the country respond to that. This is not treating the issue with sensitivity, this is driving a bus straight through the middle with “child abusers” written on it. I can’t think of any greater emotional call to arms in this country than that.

 

I appreciate there will be people who hold this view in the country. But is it really the role of a Conservative politician - a prospective leadership candidate no less - to stoke the fires in that way? She’ll say she’s standing up for a viewpoint. But at what cost to others - the whole subject needs calming down and reviewing, not having more petrol poured onto the flames.

 

And unfortunately with Braverman, this isn’t an isolated incident. She shows no care for people. She shows no sensitivity. She shows no interest in unity or working together for the common good. She doesn’t try to present a meaningful discussion on an issue, just a black-and-white “We’re this side and people over there are the enemy”. To paraphrase, she would see the world burn if she could be queen of the ashes.

Very interesting. Before we carry on, would you agree that, *if* you do not accept the premise that one can change one's gender by undergoing a surgical procedure, then Braverman's use of the word "mutilate" to describe the removal of genitals is at least internally logical?

[urban.spaceman]

58 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

But I thought people, particularly in the North, had been crying out for this for years.

All they've done is dropped the name. The objectives remain the same.

[David Hankey]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

All they've done is dropped the name. The objectives remain the same.

That remains to be seen.