General Election June 8

[Little John]

The reason the Tories will win is because of Brexit and there being no other party even remotely willing to carry it through. Even the Tories are only on board superficially.

[emordnilap]

The Tories, in virtually every poll for months, have a strong lead of between 15 to 20 odd in the polls.

The reason the Tories will win is because of Brexit and there being no other party even remotely willing to carry it through. Even the Tories are only on board superficially.

Even given LJ's comment, as with the republican party in the states, how ordinary people routinely and continually vote against their own interests makes one wonder. Believing politicians seems to be pathological.

[Little John]

The Tories, in virtually every poll for months, have a strong lead of between 15 to 20 odd in the polls.

The reason the Tories will win is because of Brexit and there being no other party even remotely willing to carry it through. Even the Tories are only on board superficially.

Even given LJ's comment, as with the republican party in the states, how ordinary people routinely and continually vote against their own interests makes one wonder. Believing politicians seems to be pathological.

In what way has voting Labour (or Democrat) over the last twenty years been good for low income earners? Or, rather, in what way has it led to any outcome fundamentally different to the one that occurred when ever they voted Tory/Republican?

The problem is not voters voting against their interests. The problem is they are voting for change - REAL change. The problem is the political class does not want to provide it and so keeps telling them lies sufficient to get through to the next election without actually effecting change. But, the electorate are growing tired and desperate. In which case, if some people don't like Trump/UKIP/Brexit, they are REALLY not going to like what comes next.

[emordnilap]

In what way has voting Labour (or Democrat) over the last twenty years been good for low income earners?

I wouldn't suggest anyone vote "labour" (though Corbyn's better than most on most issues) or "democrat" (!) - the world needs something far more radical than those. But the system's rigged anyway.

The problem is not voters voting against their interests. The problem is they are voting for change - REAL change. The problem is the political class does not want to provide it and so keeps telling them lies sufficient to get through to the next election without actually effecting change.

Yes x 200%

[Mark]

The reason the Tories will win is because of Brexit and there being no other party even remotely willing to carry it through. Even the Tories are only on board superficially.

LJ - you have a clear electoral option - UKIP - they're willing.....

For me, Brexit is like a divorce and that never leads to winners.....
The negotiations will just be about limiting the UK's losses and the price we have to pay.
May is probably seen as the safest negotiator, but I think 'Leavers' will end up being very disappointed.....

[Little John]

UKIP are willing. But with them comes rampantly unjust and utterly unsustainable capitalism.

I would vote for a British Le Pen

[Mark]

UKIP are willing. But with them comes rampantly unjust and utterly unsustainable capitalism.

I would vote for a British Le Pen

We've been down that route in the 1930s and look where that led.
IMO, scapegoating all our ills on others is not the way forward.

[Little John]

And what makes you think I am doing that?

[vtsnowedin]

There is NO justification that can be made for means testing a contributions based pension that people were legally coerced into paying toward over the entirely of their working life

It's the concept of a 'contributions based pension' that I take issue with. That term suggests the state pension is related to your actual contributions. It isn't. It's related to the number of years you have made the required contribution

Is that not a distinction without a difference?

(or had the state pretend you did like when not working but in receipt of child benefit for example), not the actual contributions themselves.

Do you Brits really count welfare and unemployment checks as contributing to your government pension? That is not the case in the US system.

[/quote]

[clv101]

(or had the state pretend you did like when not working but in receipt of child benefit for example), not the actual contributions themselves.

Do you Brits really count welfare and unemployment checks as contributing to your government pension? That is not the case in the US system.

I'm not sure of all the qualifying criteria, but paying national insurance for a year (which can be a little or a lot), or being in receipt of child benefit 'earns' you a year. The whole point being the state pension is a welfare payment which is based on your eligibility, not the amount you pay, and there are several ways to qualify.

[Little John]

Do you have a private pension CLV?

[vtsnowedin]

(or had the state pretend you did like when not working but in receipt of child benefit for example), not the actual contributions themselves.

Do you Brits really count welfare and unemployment checks as contributing to your government pension? That is not the case in the US system.

I'm not sure of all the qualifying criteria, but paying national insurance for a year (which can be a little or a lot), or being in receipt of child benefit 'earns' you a year. The whole point being the state pension is a welfare payment which is based on your eligibility, not the amount you pay, and there are several ways to qualify.

Well I can see why you are in even more trouble then the USA then.
I've been paying 6.2 percent and my employer had to kick in another 6.2 percent plus we both paid in 1.45% in medicare tax so a total of 15.90 percent on Gross income before you get to income tax both federal and state where they tax you again on the 7.62% you paid out on SC and medicare and never saw in your bank account.
I don't care what anybody thinks. I paid it in and I want it back as it's MY money.
just think how much better I could have lived and provided for my family with 15.9 percent more in my hands each payday for the last forty years.

[clv101]

Do you have a private pension CLV?

Yes but not much, only a few years worth from a spell working in the private sector last decade. That is a lump of money with my name on it - a very different thing to the state pension.

[clv101]

I don't care what anybody thinks. I paid it in and I want it back as it's MY money.

I don't know how it works in the US but that isn't how it works here for the state pension (obviously private pensions are different). With the state pension it's more like "I paid it in and..." the government immediately spent it on all sorts of things including paying the previous generation's pensions! Our government has a habit of spending every penny it collects (and then some).

[Little John]

Do you have a private pension CLV?

Yes but not much, only a few years worth from a spell working in the private sector last decade. That is a lump of money with my name on it - a very different thing to the state pension.

Is it really? How very unsurprising you should think that CLV.

Meanwhile those portions of the population who have never earned enough to both pay (via coercion) their state pension contributions as well as pay for a private pension, are wholly reliant on the promise to receive that pension as promised - without means testing - just as you expect to receive your private pension without means testing. However, in the case of your private pension, the old caveat of "buyer beware", in the case of them reneging on their promises, does not apply to contributers to the state pension since they did not "buy" that pension; they were FORCED to contribute to it.

You are, as ever, the liberal bourgeois elitist you so carefully pretend not to be. Now, who does that remind me of?