politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory membership reported to have dropped by 40k since GE17 and
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory membership reported to have dropped by 40k since GE17 and might now be below the LDs
A report tonight by the former political journalist of the year, David Henke, says there’s been a huge reduction in Tory members since GE2017 and that the total is down to 100k. In an interview John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy is quoted as saying “the real membership of the party has plummeted to around 100,000” a figure that is well below the 149,500 used by the party in 2013.
Comments
-
Hello l may be first. Sadly unlike gay donkey man or asteroid miner.0
-
Second possibly0
-
Friday afternoon comment, like BL0
-
The Tory party membership will recover once Jezza takes control.0
-
Tim_B said:
It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.another_richard said:
I'm not THAT oldIshmael_Z said:
My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.another_richard said:Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.
Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.
And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?
there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.
And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?0 -
deleted0
-
FPT:
I doubt it, given the relative size of tour two economies, and the fact that E.ON is listed in Euros on the DAX. According to their E.ON theier shareholdings are 37% German owned, 16% UK owned. If we look at EdF we find it is... oh, owned by the French state - that can't work surely??rcs1000 said:
But what does the shareholder list of E.On look like?Benpointer said:
1. Some examples: my mother and my father-in-law are both in their 80s, neither have internet access and are consequently shut out of the route to the best deals. Both unsurprisingly are on standard rates subsidising the many of us who can and do switch. They are not untypical; very few of the more vulnerable in society will be working this particular system to good effect. If everybody was of course there would be no upside for those of who can and do switch regularly.Richard_Nabavi said:
Evidence?Benpointer said:The ridiculous artificial privatised electricity 'market' we have now penalises those without the wherewithal to be switching supplier every year, diminishes our national productivity because of the effort wasted enouraging and administering switching, and in the main syphons off any profits abroad. A complete farce in pursuit of neoliberal dogma!
2. The administration of switching - the call-centres, web sites, advertising (oh and don't forget Ofgem!) - add nothing to the efficient production and delivery of electricity and indeed are an unnecessary overhead. As a result, operating costs are continuing to increase as a proportion of bills (see below).
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/retail-market-indicators#thumbchart-c7770745751913637-n84514
3. Of the UK 'big six' energy companies, four are non-uk owned: EDF Energy (owned by French firm EDF), npower (owned by German firm innogy), E.ON UK (German-owned), Scottish Power (Spanish-owned); only British Gas and Scottish & Southern are UK owned. The following article highlights how the profits leave the UK.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/revealed-how-the-world-gets-rich-from-privatising-british-public-services-9874048.html
So my question is, how has electricity privatisation and the creation of a 'market' helped the general UK population at large?
It's a bit simplistic to think that it's foreign and that British Gas is not. It's entirely possible the British pensioner is more exposed to the German firm.
Privatisation of utilities like electricity and the creation of an artificial 'market' has not been for the benefit of thr majority in this country.0 -
Tim_B said:
Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.Tim_B said:
It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.another_richard said:
I'm not THAT oldIshmael_Z said:
My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.another_richard said:Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.
Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.
And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ? there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.
And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?0 -
Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?0 -
Benpointer said:
With an enormous amount of help from the unions.Tim_B said:
Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.Tim_B said:
It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.another_richard said:
I'm not THAT oldIshmael_Z said:
My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA.another_richard said:Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.
Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.
And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ? there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.
And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?0 -
On topic, that fringe meeting will be interesting.
Suggesting that the Tories won't have enough members to fight the next election sounds like hyperbole to me.
However, one aspect which is not mentioned in the header is the membership demographics - what is the age spread of the membership and (sorry to mention it) how fast are they dying off?0 -
Benpointer said:Tim_B said:
Not exactly - it goes back to the 1968 and Tony Benn...but yes, the companies hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory.Tim_B said:
Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.another_richard said:
It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.Ishmael_Z said:
I'm not THAT oldanother_richard said:Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.
Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.
And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?
My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA. there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.
And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland0 -
You need to watch Wall Street with her.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.0 -
That's putting it mildly!Tim_B said:
Not exactly - it goes back to the 1968 and Tony Benn...but yes, the companies hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory.Benpointer said:
Nationalisation of the failing British car industry in the 70s was an unsuccessful attempt to rescue an industry that private enterprise had brought to it's knees. It was under private ownership that the UK car industry went to pot.Tim_B said:
It was 6 years old when I got it! In the 60s and 70s it was just assumed that you'd spend the first year with a new car getting the doors bonnet and boot hung correctly and all the windows and door leaks fixed. When I bought my brand new Capri GT in the late 70s I took care to order a German made model as the british made ones were awful for quality.Tim_B said:
I'm not THAT oldanother_richard said:Ishmael_Z said:another_richard said:Its interesting that over 20% of people want to nationalise the car factories.
Considering how successful the UK's car factories have been for the last decade and what the memory of British Leyland is that does suggest that 20% of people would like to nationalise EVERYTHING.
And I wonder where these 20% are socioeconomically - public sector workers ? the highly deprived ? the under-intelligent ?
My first car was a BL mini clubman, but that is because I am incredibly old. "The memory of British Leyland" suggests you are too. People are no more going to be motivated by that argument than by trying to tie Corbyn in with the IRA. there were still news reports being led by Leyland strikes over their tea break washing up time in the 1980s.
And do you ever hear people moaning about cars the way they used to ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland
PS apols for cocking up the blockquote earlier!0 -
The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.0
-
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.0 -
Hoho - that will appeal to the under 40s!stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
0 -
Party membership is overrated, Labour in 2005 for example had a lower membership when it won than in 2015 when it lost. The Tories also had a higher membership in 2001 than they had done for years and were trounced and yes Corbyn Labour has a huge membership but it still lost in June
Unless you want to be a councillor or MP most people join political parties because they are ideological and want a vehicle for it, whether socialist pacifism or anti EU social conservatism that does not mean the views of those members represent those of swing voters and often they are opposed. That does not mean membership is irrelevant, it helps to win council seats for example and to raise funds and can help in key marginals at general elections (Though even there activists can be sent from safe seats to marginals and phonebank used too).
Ultimately at general elections most voters vote on the policies of the parties, the state of the economy and who they judge to have the best leader to be PM, party members just help ensure those who have decided to back your side turn out to vote, they rarely change minds0 -
Or explain that, to repeat an example from a previous thread about payday loan interest rates:rcs1000 said:
You need to watch Wall Street with her.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
If you borrowed £20 from a friend in the pub tonight, and agreed to pay him back the £20 and buy him a £3 pint (obviously not in central London!) next Friday - if you ignored him for a year (52 weeks, times the 15% weekly interest rate) you’d owe him £28,662 at an APR of around 140,000% thanks to compound interest.
0 -
I certainly think you have hit the nail on the head with regards to nationalisation. Some people seem to think nationalisation simply means that the nation will get the profit, or cut costs for the consumer, and that the business will be run much as before but benefiting that nation (Yay!) not shareholders (Boo!).SeanT said:
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
If it really worked like that, then surely we would nationalise everything. Why not simply nationalise every business in Britain?0 -
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?0 -
I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK! Thank you very much.rcs1000 said:
You need to watch Wall Street with her.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.0 -
Apart from the YCs in the 1950s being the best middle aged dating agency around when has the Tory membership ever been anything other than mainly full of pensioners?Benpointer said:On topic, that fringe meeting will be interesting.
Suggesting that the Tories won't have enough members to fight the next election sounds like hyperbole to me.
However, one aspect which is not mentioned in the header is the membership demographics - what is the age spread of the membership and (sorry to mention it) how fast are they dying off?0 -
Universal Credit is means tested, so I haven't bothered signing on since my last contract ended in June.
But, but - I should be re-starting at my old place of work in January, touch wood.0 -
So there is a chance that the Tories are 4th in party members behind Labour, the Liberal Democrats and also the SNP.0
-
Their parents do of course and they will want to inherit some of those assets.SeanT said:
To be fair to her, the chances of a 22 year old in London ever needing to grasp the concept of a "mortgage" are vanishingly small. So why bother learning?rcs1000 said:
You need to watch Wall Street with her.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
And this, of course, is part of the problem. A lot of millenials have no capital, and never will, so they do not understand "capital", or appreciate the benefits of "capitalism"
Meanwhile house prices in London have fallen today which while bad news for home owners is good news for first time buyers0 -
A state owned travel agent: That’s a shop that’s open 9:30-4pm, Monday to Friday, doesn’t take bookings over the phone, doesn’t take credit cards and doesn’t have a website.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
They think it means: just like Expedia, but with no evil profits being made.
The kids of today need seriously educating about what state-run enterprises were actually like when they existed before.0 -
And yet - and yet! - the Tories are 1st in terms of MPs and share of the vote, ahead of Labour, the LibDems and also the SNPSaltire said:So there is a chance that the Tories are 4th in party members behind Labour, the Liberal Democrats and also the SNP.
0 -
Even at its worst polling in the early may honeymoon Corbyn Labour was polling about 25%, a quarter to a third of the British people are socialists and socialism requires nationalising most of the economySeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.0 -
Yes I agree with that; the pendulum is swinging back, maybe it will swing too far towards statism but swing back it will.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
0 -
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
0 -
Another Tory member down
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/9138473647036538880 -
Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron0 -
I think contributory JSA which you can currently get for 6 months regardless of savings may be dealt with separatelySunil_Prasannan said:Universal Credit is means tested, so I haven't bothered signing on since my last contract ended in June.
But, but - I should be re-starting at my old place of work in January, touch wood.0 -
Re large numbers of people supporting widespread nationalisation (ie not just of utilities etc):
Is this just a UK phenomenon?
Or do similar numbers also think the same in other, say, West European countries?
If it's just the UK, the question then is why?0 -
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."HYUFD said:Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron
With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right 0 -
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
0 -
Not quite true, 6/12 of the industries in the public in the poll concerned wanted to keep in private hands more than the 5/12 they wanted in public hands.MikeL said:Re large numbers of people supporting widespread nationalisation (ie not just of utilities etc):
Is this just a UK phenomenon?
Or do similar numbers also think the same in other, say, West European countries?
If it's just the UK, the question then is why?
Yougov has also recently showed more support for socialism in Germany than the UK albeit less support for capitalism in the UK than the USA
People want moderated capitalism not to end it completely0 -
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour0 -
The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverseBenpointer said:
Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."HYUFD said:Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron
With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right0 -
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour0 -
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
Most business owners provide jobs and a wage for those they employ, dealing with tax dodgers does not avoid the point that without wealth creators all sentiment for the poor is uselessBenpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour0 -
I doubt if they'd even see an increase in membership tbh. I suspect the future will judge them as having run aground on the rock of Austerity, delivered with the best of intent but it's sapped too much hope and belief from the under 40s.HYUFD said:
The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverseBenpointer said:
Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."HYUFD said:Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron
With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right0 -
The beggar? There is no beggar in the story of the Good Samaritan. The object of his charity was the victim of a robbery.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
Are you confusing it with Saint Martin and the cloak?0 -
Yes. There's a large number of them out there, who want to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
John Macdonnell, for a start.0 -
The most popular conservative messages in the polls are reducing immigration, especially low skilled immigration, a tough line on law and order and national security, reducing welfare and cutting taxes for average and low income earners and cutting inheritance tax like it or not.Benpointer said:
I doubt if they'd even see an increase in membership tbh. I suspect the future will judge them as having run aground on the rock of Austerity, delivered with the best of intent but it's sapped too much hope and belief from the under 40s.HYUFD said:
The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverseBenpointer said:
Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."HYUFD said:Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron
With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right
Austerity is less popular admittedly but that does not mean it was not necessary0 -
If that were true, he'd be a candidate for the Tory party leadershipydoethur said:
Yes. There's a large number of them out there, who want to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
John Macdonnell, for a start. 0 -
So where do pensioners fit in to that generalisation?HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
Apologies a long time since Sunday school but the Good Samaritan certainly used oil and wine to tend to the wounds of the victim and put him on his horse and paid for his lodgings at an inn which he could only do as he had the assets to do soydoethur said:
The beggar? There is no beggar in the story of the Good Samaritan. The object of his charity was the victim of a robbery.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
Are you confusing it with Saint Martin and the cloak?0 -
Pensioners are overwhelmingly Tory and most of them had jobs before they retired and paid into their pension pot when workingSandyRentool said:
So where do pensioners fit in to that generalisation?HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
Well, he's doing far more to drive waverers back to them than Boris Johnson ever would.Benpointer said:
If that were true, he'd be a candidate for the Tory party leadershipydoethur said:
Yes. There's a large number of them out there, who want to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
John Macdonnell, for a start.
Corbyn's speech may have won guarded praise, but let's face it that conference was a shambles and Macdonnell's cock-ups over PFI and economic collapse were the worst offenders.0 -
I have nothing against true wealth creators - they are the lifeblood of the economy. However, too many people who consider themselves wealth creators are actually wealth accumulators. And we shouldn't underestimate the wealth creation provided by those who work in, rather than own and run, business - they wouldn't have a job without the business owner, but equally, there would be no business without their labour. We just need to maintain a balance.HYUFD said:
Most business owners provide jobs and a wage for those they employ, dealing with tax dodgers does not avoid the point that without wealth creators all sentiment for the poor is uselessBenpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour0 -
The unemployed over 65's who are dependent on benefits vote overwhelmingly conservative.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
They are not dependant on benefits but pensions they either contributed through through National Insurance or workplace or private pension schemesPong said:
The unemployed over 65's who are dependent on benefits vote pretty strongly conservative.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
Yes and they want to benefit from the fruits of those lsbours without being overtaxed on itBenpointer said:
I have nothing against true wealth creators - they are the lifeblood of the economy. However, too many people who consider themselves wealth creators are actually wealth accumulators. And we shouldn't underestimate the wealth creation provided by those who work in, rather than own and run, business - they wouldn't have a job without the business owner, but equally, there would be no business without their labour. We just need to maintain a balance.HYUFD said:
Most business owners provide jobs and a wage for those they employ, dealing with tax dodgers does not avoid the point that without wealth creators all sentiment for the poor is uselessBenpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour0 -
Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories0 -
John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.
In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.0 -
Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%Benpointer said:
Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour0 -
I think Ed Miliband had more members than David Cameron even then? Cameron of course still beat MilibandTheScreamingEagles said:John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.
In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.0 -
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.HYUFD said:
Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour
Universal Credit also covers those who are in employment.0 -
Most men only have one member.HYUFD said:
I think Ed Miliband had more members than David Cameron even then? Cameron of course still beat MilibandTheScreamingEagles said:John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.
In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.
However Miliband did in addition to proving an electoral cock up have two Balls.
It's Friday, so I'm not getting my coat but my (iPad) battery's flat so I'm off to bed. Have a good weekend.0 -
Ah yes, very interesting... but I see Labour won the wager earners! As has been pointed out elsehwere it is only amongst the retired (most of whom are dependent on benefits) that the Tories won.HYUFD said:
Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%Benpointer said:
Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour0 -
We might be past peak Tory. They've had a good 23 year run since their 1994 low, but what goes up must come down0
-
True (albeit pensioners are dependant on contributory pensions rather than benefits as such).Benpointer said:
Ah yes, very interesting... but I see Labour won the wager earners! As has been pointed out elsehwere it is only amongst the retired (most of whom are dependent on benefits) that the Tories won.HYUFD said:
Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%Benpointer said:
Well you've stated it but is there any evidence?HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour
However Labour only won full time workers 45% to 39% and part time workers 44% to 40% so still significantly less than the 54% to 28% they won unemployed people by thus the point still holds0 -
A little PB Bible Study!Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.
The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward understanding. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.
The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but an inner one.
0 -
He still needed wine and oil to bind the wounds and he needed money to pay the innkeeper to provide lodgings for the victimfoxinsoxuk said:
A little PB Bible Study!Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.
The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward knowledge. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.
The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but rather an inner one.0 -
It does indeed because it converts all benefits into one, the whole point of it being that you do not lose all your benefits if you do some part time employment of a few hours a weekTheScreamingEagles said:
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.HYUFD said:
Corbyn won the unemployed vote in June with 54% to the Tories 28%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Overall the Tories won 42% to 40% for Labour
Universal Credit also covers those who are in employment.0 -
Very goodydoethur said:
Most men only have one member.HYUFD said:
I think Ed Miliband had more members than David Cameron even then? Cameron of course still beat MilibandTheScreamingEagles said:John Strafford always moans like a whore about the Tory member numbers.
In 2013 he predicted a disaster for the Tories at the 2015 general election because of the Tory membership figures.
However Miliband did in addition to proving an electoral cock up have two Balls.
It's Friday, so I'm not getting my coat but my (iPad) battery's flat so I'm off to bed. Have a good weekend.0 -
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
Lab beats Tories from those in work0 -
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.0 -
What isn’t Telegram saying about its connections to the Kremlin?
https://theoutline.com/post/2348/what-isn-t-telegram-saying-about-its-connections-to-the-kremlin0 -
Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with peopleCyclefree said:
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.0 -
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.bigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
0 -
He gave of the little he had, he was not a rich man.HYUFD said:
He still needed wine and oil to bind the wounds and he needed money to pay the innkeeper to provide lodgings for the victimfoxinsoxuk said:
A little PB Bible Study!Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out the good Samaritan was only of any use because he had the money and cloak to help the beggarjustin124 said:
Even though there is very little Christian about the modern Tory party - the party of sefish individualism - looking after Number one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
It also depends what part of Christianity, in terms of the support for marriage and the traditional family etc some Christians prefer the Tories, if redistribution to the poor is your priority you will obviously favour Labour
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.
The problem is not of
Jesus was pretty clear about how earthly riches are a spiritual trap. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
When approached by a rich young man who was seeking salvation, Jesus advised him to give away all his possessions to the poor.
Similarly, when he sent his followers out into the world he told them not to take any money or spare clothes:
Matthew 10 v9-13
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
0 -
The king is dead. Long live the king.
Tory-ism is alive and, well, well.
After all, May tells us it's the only way to go.0 -
By the time of the next election Boris will be yesterday's man . Il n'est pas un homme serieux.HYUFD said:
Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with peopleCyclefree said:
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.0 -
We will see but at the moment he is the best the Tories haveCyclefree said:
By the time of the next election Boris will be yesterday's man . Il n'est pas un homme serieux.HYUFD said:
Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with peopleCyclefree said:
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
0 -
The Govt classes the state pension as a benefit.HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.bigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today. Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.0 -
0
-
The travel agent thing is bizarre, I didn't think they existed any more anyway. Are we sure it isn't one of those calibration questions like the USA survey which asked "have you ever been decapitated?" and 4% said yes?Cyclefree said:
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.0 -
I think that you forget how many are on in work benefits, or who have been on benefits in the past or who have friends and family on benefits, or even a simple social conscience.HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.bigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
Writing off the difficulties of those being caught in the wheels of bureaucracy as not mattering because they mostly vote Labour would be a fatal error for the Tories, and rightly so.
If UB works as intended it has a lot of plusses, if the rollout is bodged and incompetent then there will be a lot of righteous anger, and particularly amongst those new found Tory CDE voters. They cannot eat Brexit.0 -
How do you know he was not a rich man? What he was was someone who had managed to acquire money and some wealth through his labours which he could use to help others.foxinsoxuk said:
salvation, Jesus advised him to give away all his possessions to the poor.HYUFD said:
He still needed wine and oil to bind the wounds and he needed money to pay the innkeeper to provide lodgings for the victimfoxinsoxuk said:
A little PB Bible Study!Benpointer said:
The problem is, the bad Samaritan - the one who makes as much as possible for himself by fleecing others, avoids paying taxes, and berates the poor as lazy scroungers - never got a mention... but far outnumbered his good compatriot.HYUFD said:
As Thatcher often pointed out Labourjustin124 said:
one - and 'I'm all right Jack!'.stevef said:The Conservatives need to relaunch themselves as a political party, with a younger new leader, a new statement of purpose, rejecting its Thatcherite past. It need to become the Christian Democrat Party of GB.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.
The problem is not of
Similarly, when he sent his followers out into the world he told them not to take any money or spare clothes:
Matthew 10 v9-13
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise
The New Testament was certainly a bit more leftwing than the Old Testament but even he was clear in the parable of the talents that those who fail to make the most of their abilities and are slothful were not approved of either
'But his master answered him
You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30'
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:14-30&version=ESV
The New Testament also makes clear that it is love of money rather than money itself which is the problem
'For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.'
http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm0 -
foxinsoxuk said:HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.bigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
HYUFD - see me
47% of UK benefit spending goes on state pensions of £74.22bn a year
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2787888/how-state-pension-funded-cash-runs.html0 -
Your National Insurance Payments help ensure your eligibility for the full state pension, other than contributory JSA unemployment benefits are not contributorybigjohnowls said:
The Govt classes the state pension as a benefit.HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay Nationalbigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
Lab beats Tories from those in work
The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today. Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.
Of course most pensioners nowadays have workplace pension schemes too not just the state pension0 -
Are you aware of the interpretation of Christ as the Good Samaritan, being robbed and beaten representing sin, the hotel as the Church, etc?foxinsoxuk said:
A little PB Bible Study!
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.
The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward understanding. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.
The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but an inner one.
0 -
The idea that the Conservatives don't have enough manpower to actually run the next election campaign seems very hyperbolic to me. But nonetheless it is no doubt that most young people getting involved in politics at the moment Have signed up to Labour. I think there is a pretty good bet that there is a future prime minister who has just got back from Brighton. The question is whether he or she will be a Labour Prime Minister.0
-
Did I say I would scrap benefits? Nofoxinsoxuk said:
I think that you forget how many are on in work benefits, or who have been on benefits in the past or who have friends and family on benefits, or even a simple social conscience.HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to inbigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the less soIshmael_Z said:
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Writing off the difficulties of those being caught in the wheels of bureaucracy as not mattering because they mostly vote Labour would be a fatal error for the Tories, and rightly so.
If UB works as intended it has a lot of plusses, if the rollout is bodged and incompetent then there will be a lot of righteous anger, and particularly amongst those new found Tory CDE voters. They cannot eat Brexit.
I just pointed out the simple fact that those in work, including part time work, are far more likely to vote Tory than those on unemployment benefits and universal credit is vital for helping more people get off benefits and into work which while being good for them also makes them more likely to vote Tory.
As I have pointed out Corbyn won the unemployed heavily and DEs heavily so there while there may be teething problems to be sorted out regarding benefits payments that will not make much difference to the Tory vote, what will is getting some of those unemployed into work, even if only part time0 -
Yes, and there are many other interesting layers to the tale. The significance of it being road from the holy city of Jerusalem to the mercantile town of Jericho for example.Freggles said:
Are you aware of the interpretation of Christ as the Good Samaritan, being robbed and beaten representing sin, the hotel as the Church, etc?foxinsoxuk said:
A little PB Bible Study!
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a particularly interesting and many layered one.
The problem is not of the Bad Samaritan (Samaritans were despised by the Jews as not recognizing the scriptures beyond the first 5 books) but rather of the Priest and Levite (temple assistant) who passed by on the other side. They professed Jewish religiosity, but had no inward understanding. The Samaritan however had rejected Jewish religiosity, but yet acted generously and at some personal loss.
The point is not that you have to have money to help (binding the wounds and carrying to a place of safety was a social rather than financial cost) but rather that real knowledge of the Spirit was not an outward profession but an inner one.0 -
Talking of that lefty rabble rousing Jesus,
I'm sitting here trying to visualise how to thread Trump through the eye of a needle.0 -
It suggests that the tories are ripe for entryism. Aaron Banks is trying to deselect Amber Rudd, he has written to everyone in Hastings trying to get people to join the conservative party for that purpose.
0 -
bigjohnowls said:
State pensions paid for by National Insurance which those pensioners will have paid when they were workingfoxinsoxuk said:HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.bigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:Here's what is going to happen: the tories are going to sit in the middle of the railway tracks dickering about hard brexits and the leadership and by the new year they will have been wiped out by a sodding great express train thundering down on them marked UNIVERSAL CREDIT COCKUP. That and an nhs crisis will give us a second winter of discontent and put them out of power for a generation.
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
HYUFD - see me
47% of UK benefit spending goes on state pensions of £74.22bn a year
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2787888/how-state-pension-funded-cash-runs.html0 -
Hang on - are we talking about the same political party? The one which five months ago everyone (including its opponents) thought was on track to win a majority so huge that it was a threat to democracy?0
-
NI goes into a big pot along with the rest of the taxes. It's relevant as far as individuals' payments are concerned but there's no hypothecation from tax to benefit. And that part of the state pension you get whether you've paid any NI or not is a benefit.bigjohnowls said:
The Govt classes the state pension as a benefit.HYUFD said:
No pensions are not benefits they are contributed to in your working life when you pay National Insurance or into your workplace or private pension.bigjohnowls said:
Most of those on benefits vote Tory actually. You do know OAPs are on benefits dont you.HYUFD said:
It is a stated fact that the unemployed and those dependant on benefits vote overwhelmingly Labour those who earn a wage rather less soIshmael_Z said:
You do not fill me with confidence that you know what you are talking about.HYUFD said:
There are a few cock ups in implementing it but those affected will almost all be Labour voters anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
The principle is irreproachable. It is cockups in implementing it which will be the tories' downfall - families running out of rent and heating and food money during its introduction. And it's not me saying this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41433019.HYUFD said:
No Universal Credit is vital to ensure people can actually do some work even for a few hours a week without losing all their benefits.Corbyn Labour of course has few qualms about keeping people permanently on welfare which is why they oppose it. The scheme may need adjustment, that does not mean it is wrongIshmael_Z said:
Only kidding, of course, because what could possibly go wrong with a grandiose scheme dreamed up as make-work to keep the Quiet Man quiet?
That does not excuse the failures but it is only by getting them into the workplace that they may consider moving to the Tories
Lab beats Tories from those in work
Labour did indeed narrowly beat the Tories amongst workers but nowhere near as much as they beat the Tories by amongst the unemployed dependent on benefits
The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today. Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.0 -
@Cyclefree said:
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.
@Dixiedean said:
There is a problem here though. The argument for the status quo needs to explain why there have been falling real wages for 10 years. Is that because of too much or too little liberal capitalism? And did the GFC happen because of too much regulation or not enough?
The Conservatives have not really begun to even ask these questions, let alone answer them. They have not had a full leadership election for 12 years where such problems could be hammered out.
The last one indeed was won by, we are going to be quiet about Europe and be nice to gays, ethnic minorities and single mothers, and if you don't agree please shut up, 'cos we are sick of losing. (Simplified, but you get my drift. It was a very different time).
That is why, if May goes, a coronation or stitch-up won't be good enough.
You can't win a battle of ideas if you do't know or aren't sure what your ideas are.
0 -
I wonder if Boris has considered setting up his own new party, kadima style?
It's one option he has.0 -
He's not. He's just one of the more obvious options in the shop front. But the new season's range really needs revealing.HYUFD said:
We will see but at the moment he is the best the Tories haveCyclefree said:
By the time of the next election Boris will be yesterday's man . Il n'est pas un homme serieux.HYUFD said:
Boris only beat Livingstone because he was a charismatic fighter able to connect with peopleCyclefree said:
Absolutely right. And those in favour of it have forgotten how to argue for it - and in a way which resonates with people. Assertion is not argument.SeanT said:
Fair enough.Benpointer said:
I think you will find your wife is in a very small sheltered minority of that generation. All my nephews and nieces understand it very well... they see it charged on the credit card bills each month, and half of them know only too well what it's doing to their university fee loans.SeanT said:FPT on that argument about under-40s not understanding socialist economics...
The other day I had to explain to my 22 year old wife what interest rates were. Not the intricacies, but the entire concept of borrowing money, and the bank charging you for that, along with the allied concepts of saving, and being paid for it, and laying down capital for a mortgage, which was also tied to these weird things called "interest rates".
She had no clue. And she's very smart (if a bit scatter brained, as she would admit). She got grade As at A level, despite a chaotic schooling, she got into SOAS, speaks fluent Spanish and decent Hindi.
We have raised a generation with no basic grasp of economics, which may explain Corbynism, I fear.
But the fact that 25% of people want to "nationalise" travel agents does point to a fair bit of economic ignorance. And I am sure part of it is generational: the liberal capitalist consensus has reigned so long people have forgotten the basic facts behind it.
You have to keep winning arguments and be willing to make the case for your cause constantly and at every possible opportunity. Taking it for granted that the argument is won or self-evident is utter complacency.
Similarly, that Tory member vote suggesting that Corbyn was unlikely to be PM was the epitome of complacency. The world will be different in a few years and the sort of leader is not someone who beat a tired Livingstone a decade earlier but a fighter: a passionate, eloquent fighter, able to speak to people in a way which resonates, and with a real desire to make things better for the country above all, not primarily concerned about their ego.0 -
Or even that it happened.HYUFD said:
The most popular conservative messages in the polls are reducing immigration, especially low skilled immigration, a tough line on law and order and national security, reducing welfare and cutting taxes for average and low income earners and cutting inheritance tax like it or not.Benpointer said:
I doubt if they'd even see an increase in membership tbh. I suspect the future will judge them as having run aground on the rock of Austerity, delivered with the best of intent but it's sapped too much hope and belief from the under 40s.HYUFD said:
The Tories could promise to reverse gay marriage and end all immigration tomorrow and bring back hanging and they would probably see a surge in membership however that does not mean they would be more likely to win the next general election in fact probably the reverseBenpointer said:
Interesting article. Includes this, er, useful piece of insight: "The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce has previously attributed the decline to Cameron's prominent support for gay marriage, reporting that thousands "ripped up their membership cards and refused to renew their subscriptions."HYUFD said:Tory membership had halved under Cameron 3 years before he won a majority
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/how-tory-membership-has-collapsed-under-cameron
With views like that, I am sure they will soon put all their troubles to right
Austerity is less popular admittedly but that does not mean it was not necessary0
