Does May want to win?

[Jeff FV]

Forget about right and left for a minute, where May and Corbyn are poles apart is that May is an arch pragmatist politician and Corbyn is the arch conviction politician.

Sensing a landslide victory, May et al are sensibly using the opportunity to remove and reset some of the Jam today and tomorrow promises that politicians of all hues readily bandy about.

My hopes, based on realistically possible outcomes, is that May does win a large majority (although I hope my sitting Tory MP is ousted!) allowing her to ditch the demands of UKIP and far right members of her party. In addition, I hope that Corbyn gets booted out as Leader of Labour and we see a resurgence of a credible Labour Party who can form an effective opposition.

 

[Cobby]

The reasons are very clear:
Jeremy Corbin
Diane Abbott
Union leaders
All the other trots, marxists, communists in the envy fuelled, spiteful, hypocritical mob that would be released, like the army of Mordor, to destroy the country if "Labour" won.

Just FYI this is the right-winger's equivalent to Godwin's Law.

 

[Cobby]

I'm easy - I know I'll NEVER vote labour. Policies don't come into it.

Read that back to yourself. Slowly.

 

[Cobby]

If we're leaving then I'd rather have May doing the negotiation. Corbyn would give stuff away stuff before he starts the negotiation... like immediately removing all uncertainy for EU nationals living in the UK. That would be a very honourable and charitable gesture as it involves people's lives and children's futures.

That's not the bargaining chip you seem to think it is.

Goodness knows what else he'd give away.

Yeah, like human rights, free speech, social mobility or...wait a second, sorry I'm thinking of May.

The man is a decent chap, but that's not the top quality you want in a negotiator. You want a savvy operator who knows when to push, when to pull, someone who can be tough when needed, someone who will drive a hard bargain. Unfortunately, as much as I like Corbyn, this isn't him.

Do you genuinely believe it's May? She has shown less backbone than any party leader, even Farron, and is the most flip-floppy Tory beside Boris. When it comes to Corbyn, the closest thing to the 'unelectable' tautology trotted out by the right-wing is that he doesn't conform to the required appearance criteria for a modern 'politician'.

These "followers" seem to now include a lot of people who voted Labour all their lives.

And a lot of intended Labour voters who have previously voted Tory, too. It's quite the mish-mash isn't it!

 

[Cobby]

...Labour Party who can form an effective opposition.

While it would be nice to see Labour sort themselves out and settle their internal issues, it's going to be a while before they're seen as 'effective opposition'. Until the Tories damage the country enough for those who are not white, middle-class or wealthy, the public backlash against them will never overcome the message pushed by almost 3/4's of our right-wing, billionaire owned-media. Even less chance if/when Scotland leave the UK. Hey ho.

 

[Newchodge]

If she gets back in this forum could be under threat. Certainly this thread could be endangered!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ternet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I have to say, with the Conservative manifesto policies relating to pensioners, I almost wonder if May does want to lose.

Well, I think the more likely explanation is that she's being too cocky and underestimating Corbyn.

Means-tested winter fuel payments, more expensive home care for many, and the eventual removal of the triple-lock pension guarantee.

And in regards to the proposal of increasing protected assets but including homes, it may work out better for some people, but a problem is that it's too complicated. Few people will be able to look at that policy and easily work out if they're going to be better off or not.

Some of the policies are actually right, in my view. Well-off pensioners should not be getting the winter fuel payments if they can comfortably afford bills without it.

But regardless of whether it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, these policies will hit the pockets of millions of pensioners who tend to lean heavily towards the Conservatives and have the largest voter turnouts in elections by age group.

It's a very dangerous group to mess with. Not only could they turn a lot of pensioners away from the Tories, but with many sons and daughters filling the conservative-leaning 40-50 age groups, they could make a lot of those voters think twice as well. This is particularly the case when it will be a lot more difficult for many pensioners to pass family homes on to their children.

I think we might see an even bigger bump in the Labour vote shortly. If not, we may see the Conservative vote share go down as more people switch back to UKIP. This is a huge gamble.

 

[Ian J]

But regardless of whether it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, these policies will hit the pockets of millions of pensioners who tend to lean heavily towards the Conservatives and have the largest voter turnouts in elections by age group.

I think that most pensioners will agree that Winter Fuel Benefits should be means tested and they will also realise that changing the triple lock on their pension to a double lock isn't going to cost more than £1 per week but the one that will have them scratching their heads is the proposed change to social care funding

 

[Newchodge]

I think that most pensioners will agree that Winter Fuel Benefits should be means tested and they will also realise that changing the triple lock on their pension to a double lock isn't going to cost more than £1 per week but the one that will have them scratching their heads is the proposed change to social care funding

I have no problem with Winter Fuel Benefits being means tested, but the manifesto does not bother to explain how. If it is based on pensioners receiving pension credit (as seems very likely) then 10 million pensioners will lose the benefit, many of whom will need it.

This is an extension of the Tories' targetting disability benefit to those who need it most, not those who need it, and there is a huge difference between the two.

Changing the triple lock now is absolute stupidity - the inflation rate is already above 2.5% and unlikely to reduce in the foreseeable future, so they have removed the commitment to a minimum 2.5% rise at a time when the rise will be more than 2.5% anyway!

I repeat my original question - are they trying to lose?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I think that most pensioners will agree that Winter Fuel Benefits should be means tested and they will also realise that changing the triple lock on their pension to a double lock isn't going to cost more than £1 per week but the one that will have them scratching their heads is the proposed change to social care funding

The problem with means-testing is the reputation that surrounds it.

It's a very vague term, and multiple reports regarding other means-tested benefits have shown that the tests can be extremely strict where even those in genuine need are penalised.

There's every chance that only pensioners in genuine fuel poverty will receive it. Perhaps that's the right thing to do, but many other pensioners will still notice £300 a year vanishing into thin air (the lower-middle classes in particular).

As for the triple lock, the removal of the minimum 2.5% is more of a political spin problem. It removes one of the guarantees, adds more uncertainty and ultimately makes pensioners feel as though they're being attacked.

Looking at the figures, it seems like if that 2.5% minimum was never in place, pensioners would be about £100 per year worse off today. It's not a huge amount, but it's still an amount.

And as Cyndy has mentioned, this removal of the triple lock is unlikely to have any impact at all for the foreseeable future. It's just created bad PR and made their key voter base feel under attack for little reason.

However its spun, one fact will now remain true for millions of pensioners: voting for the Conservatives is a vote for being less well off. That won't go down well.

 

[Ian J]

However its spun, one fact will now remain true for millions of pensioners: voting for the Conservatives is a vote for being less well off. That won't go down well.

I can't argue with that and assume that Mrs May is banking on the fact that there isn't really a credible alternative to the Conservative party at the moment

 

[Jeff FV]

As a non-pensioner I am quite pleased with both the means testing of the winter fuel allowance and the removal of the triple lock (I don't yet known enough about the social care proposals so I can't comment on this.)

All parties policies have been skewed to the advantage of pensioners in recent times as they are more likely to vote. The £200 winter fuel allowance was given as a straight forward bung to buy votes. No way does everyone need it.

The triple lock is another political construct, the double lock is economically sound and sensible.

So actually, amongst all the brouhaha, this pragmatism appeals to me, and I suspect millions like me, who, whilst we would love all the things that politicians promise us pre-election, and realise that you can't have everything.

 

[Mr D]

Cobby, how do people decide who to vote for?
The media telling them? Their own experiences? What advantage they stand to gain? What they hope for the future?
I cannot say I have ever met anyone (in person) and haven't come across any on the internet who admit to voting based on what some media told them to.
I know I don't vote based on who the media say to vote for.

Anyone come across people who do what the media tell them?

 

[Mr D]

The social care proposals - I saw yesterday some woman who was looking at losing her home and becoming homeless had a go at May.
The idea of someone with £100k being homeless strikes me as being a tad... annoying to anyone who has been homeless with nothing?
It appears to be the state will take money from the estate until there is only £100k left.

Don't know about anyone else but £100k seems like a substantial deposit for a house or an investment towards paying rent.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I can't argue with that and assume that Mrs May is banking on the fact that there isn't really a credible alternative to the Conservative party at the moment

I think that's her game. She's not only trying to increase her parliamentary majority, but she's also taking the opportunity to remove some "over-generous" elements from the Conservative manifesto so she has more freedom for her term.

I think she's misjudged this though, I really do. I doubt it's going to completely backfire (i.e. Corbyn becoming PM), but she was banking on the Labour party having a lot less popularity than they do today.

In fact, this attack on pensioners, one of the Tories' most reliable voter bases, indicates a lot of arrogance on her part. She may not lose many votes to Labour, but she could certainly lose a lot by pushing more older voters back towards UKIP (or deciding not to vote at all).

Hindsight is a wonderful thing mind. I suppose back when she announced the snap election, it really did look like she could do no wrong with Corbyn in opposition. Clearly though, that's not the case. She's in a strong position, but she's far from invincible.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

I think that most pensioners will agree that Winter Fuel Benefits should be means tested

Speak for yourself.

I spent many years paying tax without begrudging the amount that went to old people. There now seems to be a move to blame pensioners for the low tax and low social charges paid by Britain's workers. Personally I would prefer a choice of the approach made by many other countries, to share the wealth out a bit more.

 

[Newchodge]

Cobby, how do people decide who to vote for?
The media telling them? Their own experiences? What advantage they stand to gain? What they hope for the future?
I cannot say I have ever met anyone (in person) and haven't come across any on the internet who admit to voting based on what some media told them to.
I know I don't vote based on who the media say to vote for.

Anyone come across people who do what the media tell them?

A colleague who lives in Wallsend and states that she is labour through and through. But can't vote for Corbyn because she doesn't like him. Couldn't tell me why she doesn't like him, could not fault any of his policies. But she does not think he can get elected. Why would she think that? She has never met him, she only has the media to base that decision on.

A facebook acquaintance who, again is labour throughout his life. Will not vote for Corbyn because he is an IRA sympathiser. The only evidence for Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser (as opposed to believing in peace above violence) is the media.

 

[Newchodge]

The social care proposals - I saw yesterday some woman who was looking at losing her home and becoming homeless had a go at May.
The idea of someone with £100k being homeless strikes me as being a tad... annoying to anyone who has been homeless with nothing?
It appears to be the state will take money from the estate until there is only £100k left.

Don't know about anyone else but £100k seems like a substantial deposit for a house or an investment towards paying rent.

That rather depends on how many people, and who, inherit a portion of that £100,00. Suppose the old (and now dead) person left a will that everything they own should be shared between their 8 grandchildren?

 

[Mr D]

That rather depends on how many people, and who, inherit a portion of that £100,00. Suppose the old (and now dead) person left a will that everything they own should be shared between their 8 grandchildren?

Then they have a chunk of change each.
However if the mother left her entire fortune between 8 grandchildren but daughter lives in the house she'd still be kicked out?

So who should pay for care? The person (and their estate when they don't have the ready funds) up to a point? Or other people?

May will likely have put off some older voters with this proposal. But may attract other voters who are keen for the rich to 'pay their fair share' despite not knowing what the phrase means.

 

[Newchodge]

Currently the mother can leave the house in trust to the grandchildren, allowing the daughter to live there for the rest of her life.

I personally believe the rich should pay their fair share, however, I also believe in a society that cares for those in need. We should have a national care service funded from taxes, and the taxes to pay for that should take from the wealthy, both in income tax and in inheritance tax, to fund decent care for all.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

A colleague who lives in Wallsend and states that she is labour through and through. But can't vote for Corbyn because she doesn't like him. Couldn't tell me why she doesn't like him, could not fault any of his policies. But she does not think he can get elected. Why would she think that? She has never met him, she only has the media to base that decision on.

I am surprised at how few people have ever engaged with their MP in person. It doesn't take much to find a meeting or a speech and to perhaps chat to your candidate afterwards.
(I was at a Q&A session with my local Libdem candidate and Tim Farron. Both came over very well indeed. )

 

[Newchodge]

My niece, whose parents are UKIP supporters, and who tended to agree with them, met Jeremy Corbyn last year when he visited the place where she has a studio. She has been an absolutely enthusiastic supporter of him (even more than I am) ever since. So much so that she seems to have convinced her parents.

 

[Ian J]

A colleague who lives in Wallsend and states that she is labour through and through. But can't vote for Corbyn because she doesn't like him. Couldn't tell me why she doesn't like him, could not fault any of his policies. But she does not think he can get elected. Why would she think that? She has never met him, she only has the media to base that decision on.

It isn't just Corbyn but also his sidekick Diane Abbot who put people off voting Labour.

 

[Ian J]

My niece, whose parents are UKIP supporters, and who tended to agree with them, met Jeremy Corbyn last year when he visited the place where she has a studio. She has been an absolutely enthusiastic supporter of him (even more than I am) ever since.

My wife is a nurse in a hospital and Corbyn paid them a visit last month. She didn't get to meet him but her boss did and said that in person he was a very charming man.

As a life long Tory I don't think I could ever describe Mrs May as charming and she probably isn't even a nice person but I would still rather have her running the country than Jeremy Corbyn

 

[Newchodge]

Philip Hammond and Theresa May both made worse gaffes than Diane Abbot about figures in the last couple of days, but the media did noit report them in the same way they reported Diane Abbot's police costings.

People won't vote Labour because of Diane Abbot, but will vote conservative despite Boris Johnson?

 

[Mr D]

The fair share is around £11k a year last I looked. And high income people tend to pay quite a bit more than this, so would be probably happy to just pay their fair share. Those not paying that much may be annoyed to have to pay their fair share, especially if not making that much money.

 

[Mr D]

Philip Hammond and Theresa May both made worse gaffes than Diane Abbot about figures in the last couple of days, but the media did noit report them in the same way they reported Diane Abbot's police costings.

People won't vote Labour because of Diane Abbot, but will vote conservative despite Boris Johnson?

Have you ever met Diane?

Not the most pleasant individual to meet. Most MPs I've met have been charming in person, a few.... not.
Boris is like a big cuddly teddy bear, he'd probably do well as a stand up comedian.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Have you ever met Diane?

Not the most pleasant individual to meet. Most MPs I've met have been charming in person, a few.... not.

A cousin attended a full day lecture and seminar led by her and found her totally on top of her subject and charming with it.

 

[Newchodge]

The fair share is around £11k a year last I looked. And high income people tend to pay quite a bit more than this, so would be probably happy to just pay their fair share. Those not paying that much may be annoyed to have to pay their fair share, especially if not making that much money.

are you on the right thread?

 

[Cobby]

It isn't just Corbyn but also his sidekick Diane Abbot who put people off voting Labour.

Huh, that's not the point I took from that. To me she seemed to be making the point that it's not necessarily Corbyn that puts people off so much it's the media's representation of him.

It's reinforced by people not really offering cogent arguments against him, and also relying on the two tautological soundbites: "he's unelectable" and yours above, "nobody likes Jeremy Corbyn because he's unlikeable".

 

[Cobby]

Philip Hammond and Theresa May both made worse gaffes than Diane Abbot about figures in the last couple of days, but the media did noit report them in the same way they reported Diane Abbot's police costings

May's statement that sterling tanking had nothing to do with Brexit is laughable and was so Trump-esque as to indicate the same denial of reality as he suffers. Was she wilfully lying or is she just inept?

Abbot bungled her way through an interview actually trying to answer questions (and has done this more than once recently) and made mistakes - if she was that tired, perhaps she should have cried off, but she didn't. She looked, in that moment, like an amateur.

Do we choose the party of the professional liars and con artists, or genuine buffoons? That's *NOT* actually the choice being offered though, unless you buy fully into the media's narrative.

 

[Cobby]

Means-tested winter fuel payments...Some of the policies are actually right, in my view. Well-off pensioners should not be getting the winter fuel payments if they can comfortably afford bills without it.

I'd be curious to know what the qualification threshold is (conspicuous in its absence) and how they plan to do the testing - i.e. what are the costs of the system to actually do the testing, and would the totality of money saved outweigh the cost of just giving the payment to those who do not need it?

 

[Newchodge]

I'd be curious to know what the qualification threshold is (conspicuous in its absence) and how they plan to do the testing - i.e. what are the costs of the system to actually do the testing, and would the totality of money saved outweigh the cost of just giving the payment to those who do not need it?

It's easy. Set the threshold at pensioner's credit and there is no work needed, no cost and many, many pensioners freezing to death.

 

[sirearl]

As a life long Tory I don't think I could ever describe Mrs May as charming and she probably isn't even a nice person but I would still rather have her running the country than Jeremy Corbyn

Is that based on her outstanding record as home secretary.?

 

[Mr D]

It's easy. Set the threshold at pensioner's credit and there is no work needed, no cost and many, many pensioners freezing to death.

Are there many pensioners freezing to death due to receiving only £200 / £300 already? If that little money makes the difference then there are bigger probems than a universal benefit.

Edit: Come to think of it, are there millions of non pensioners who do not get this money but are in fuel poverty freezing to death?

 

[Mr D]

are you on the right thread?

It was you I was replying to.

"I personally believe the rich should pay their fair share, however, I also believe in a society that cares for those in need"

 

[sirearl]

I suspect Teresa is a bit wobbly with her policies since the demise of her brains.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/downing-street-chaos-theresa-mays-10268666

 

[Newchodge]

Are there many pensioners freezing to death due to receiving only £200 / £300 already? If that little money makes the difference then there are bigger probems than a universal benefit.

Sorry, freezing to death is probably the wrong phrase.

The figures for additional deaths amongst people of pensionable age during the winter months are striking. The reduction in those figures (although they are still a cause for concern) after the winter fuel payments is also striking.

 

[Mr D]

Sorry, freezing to death is probably the wrong phrase.

The figures for additional deaths amongst people of pensionable age during the winter months are striking. The reduction in those figures (although they are still a cause for concern) after the winter fuel payments is also striking.

There are no other factors that made a difference? Like insulation?

 

[Newchodge]

There are no other factors that made a difference? Like insulation?

Are you mad? Of course insulation plays a role. If there is insufficient insulation a house will be colder. Someone on low income can do nothing to deal with the insulation problem. Are you proposing a pensioner's isulation grant instead of a winter fuel allowance?