Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Overdriven]

"I'm" not "we" says it all about these wankers.

That's some vicious chalking there though, how are the people of Norfolk going to recover?

By blaming the new PM probably.

 

[Tom]

Totally on point, Reform voters are exactly the people to complain about children using chalk on pavements.

 

[Gwadien]

Totally on point, Reform voters are exactly the people to complain about children using chalk on pavements.

But it wasn't children, it was violent angry rioters (according to Reform)

Who wrote 'glitter' in chalk!

CANT MEK IT OOP!

 

[Scouse]

On Labour's watch:

Palestine Action barrister’s prosecution criticised as ‘chilling’

CBA chair says contempt charge over closing speech by Rajiv Menon KC has left lawyers fearful of doing their job

www.theguardian.com

One day, your life and future may depend on a jury. The integrity of that legal process is in peril right now | Imran Khan

When a barrister is cited for contempt because of his argument to a jury, as happened in a Palestine Action trial, the risks affect us all, says Imran Khan KC

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gwadien]

On Labour's watch:

Palestine Action barrister’s prosecution criticised as ‘chilling’

CBA chair says contempt charge over closing speech by Rajiv Menon KC has left lawyers fearful of doing their job

www.theguardian.com

One day, your life and future may depend on a jury. The integrity of that legal process is in peril right now | Imran Khan

When a barrister is cited for contempt because of his argument to a jury, as happened in a Palestine Action trial, the risks affect us all, says Imran Khan KC

www.theguardian.com

X Andy, he'll sort it.

 

[Scouse]

Right now he's just a showy dick.

 

[Deebs]

What is all this stuff tRump is spewing and doing, ie the tariffs on countries not doing enough to stop forced labour? The UK was on the list so what am I missing?

 

[Raven]

None of it makes any sense and will change again tomorrow. How any nation can be arsed with it all amazes me. Everyone should just turn around and tell him to fuck off, and we can sort it out when the next president turns up.

 

[Embattle]

What is all this stuff tRump is spewing and doing, ie the tariffs on countries not doing enough to stop forced labour? The UK was on the list so what am I missing?

It is mainly to do with the US side of the previous trade agreement, he is using short term laws to keep them going.

 

[DaGaffer]

What is all this stuff tRump is spewing and doing, ie the tariffs on countries not doing enough to stop forced labour? The UK was on the list so what am I missing?

They're cycling through obscure laws on the US statute books to keep tarrifs going. The last lot of tariffs used some emergency powers thing that has to be terminated after 150 days, and on day 149 this shit shows up, which will duly be stuck down by the court on a few months and Trump will move onto the next one.

Everything about this Administration is about weaponization of the law in ways that weren't intended, but this is the result of both parties' behaviour going back decades, and it's difficult to see how it can be stopped.

 

[Raven]

Rebellion and War is how it is stopped. Humanity needs a good straighter.

That's how it has always worked.

 

[Gwadien]

They're cycling through obscure laws on the US statute books to keep tarrifs going. The last lot of tariffs used some emergency powers thing that has to be terminated after 150 days, and on day 149 this shit shows up, which will duly be stuck down by the court on a few months and Trump will move onto the next one.

Everything about this Administration is about weaponization of the law in ways that weren't intended, but this is the result of both parties' behaviour going back decades, and it's difficult to see how it can be stopped.

I don't think the answer to this particular one is internal US politics though.

The previous reason for tariffs had some logical justification, these don't, especially with their prison population...

Isn't it about time we all hold hands and tell him to get to fuck?

 

[DaGaffer]

Isn't it about time we all hold hands and tell him to get to fuck?

It's been time for that since the start.

 

[BloodOmen]

View: https://youtu.be/Vhz2NTnrNfQ

 

[Scouse]

Yes. Torygraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/25/british-free-speech-union-help-victims-germany-crackdown/

 

[Embattle]

Police investigate donations by Richard Tice company to Reform UK

Britain Means Business, owned by the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice, made two donations of £250,000 in the run-up to the 2024 general election.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Authoritarian overreach into our system of justice, once again.

Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists over bank damage

Exclusive: Judge intends to consider ‘terrorist connection’ after convicting five for damage to Barclays in Burnley

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Burnham talking sense on assisted dying:

Assisted dying debate should come after end-of-life care reform, says Burnham

Introducing the legislation would be ‘very challenging’ until care system improved, PM says

www.theguardian.com

Wants to fix palliative care and social care first. Which I fully agree with.

But one thing that is sticking in my craw - I think we should fund it out of inheritance.

If your family aren't looking after you at the end of your life, and you've a house and a pension and whatever, and you go into a care home - then those costs should be recouped against YOUR assets. You shouldn't get to keep them, at the expense of the public, and pass them on to your kids. Your assets should be used to look after yourself.

Now, what sticks in people's craws is that the workshy and/or the poor won't have any assets for the government to claw back - so "why should the middle classes and the rich fund care homes for people who can't afford it". Yadda yadda yadda.

But conversely - why should everyone pay additional tax to fund care home provision. Only about 25% of people end up in a care home - so 75% don't. That 25% shouldn't be getting to pass a lot of their wealth on. (Although I admit, it's the poorest who tend to end up in care homes - because poverty goes hand in hand with poor diet, lack of exercise, and all the shit that makes you more likely to end up in a care home in the first place).

Frankly. I'd be happy for the government to come along and take a chunk of my assets after my death - even if I don't end up in a care home. I'm not against a death tax. People should have to support themselves, yes. But we should fund necessary care if we've decided to structure our society to the point that families don't do that job any more.

 

[Deebs]

Burnham talking sense on assisted dying:

Assisted dying debate should come after end-of-life care reform, says Burnham

Introducing the legislation would be ‘very challenging’ until care system improved, PM says

www.theguardian.com

Wants to fix palliative care and social care first. Which I fully agree with.

But one thing that is sticking in my craw - I think we should fund it out of inheritance.

If your family aren't looking after you at the end of your life, and you've a house and a pension and whatever, and you go into a care home - then those costs should be recouped against YOUR assets. You shouldn't get to keep them, at the expense of the public, and pass them on to your kids. Your assets should be used to look after yourself.

Now, what sticks in people's craws is that the workshy and/or the poor won't have any assets for the government to claw back - so "why should the middle classes and the rich fund care homes for people who can't afford it". Yadda yadda yadda.

But conversely - why should everyone pay additional tax to fund care home provision. Only about 25% of people end up in a care home - so 75% don't. That 25% shouldn't be getting to pass a lot of their wealth on. (Although I admit, it's the poorest who tend to end up in care homes - because poverty goes hand in hand with poor diet, lack of exercise, and all the shit that makes you more likely to end up in a care home in the first place).

Frankly. I'd be happy for the government to come along and take a chunk of my assets after my death - even if I don't end up in a care home. I'm not against a death tax. People should have to support themselves, yes. But we should fund necessary care if we've decided to structure our society to the point that families don't do that job any more.

That view opens up my opinion:

If I have to go into care and sell my house to cover it even though I paid my taxes all my life then I want to end my life to ensure I can pass on something that I know will massively help them in their life journey (+ my grandchildren).

 

[Scouse]

That view opens up my opinion:

If I have to go into care and sell my house to cover it even though I paid my taxes all my life then I want to end my life to ensure I can pass on something that I know will massively help them in their life journey (+ my grandchildren).

Your choice.

But the public shouldn't be funding your invalidity. It shouldn't be free. You should have made preparations for the end of your own life - and not be expecting the "rest of society" to pick up the bill, just so your kids can blow your assets on hookers and coke.

I mean, they can get jobs, just like everyone else, no? Why should I pay tax, today, to fund your inheritance?


(Of course, they already do, but you get my meaning).

 

[Scouse]

Remember, 75% of people don't end up in care homes. Why should they pay tax to fund the 25% who do?

 

[DaGaffer]

Remember, 75% of people don't end up in care homes. Why should they pay tax to fund the 25% who do?

@Scouse in understanding fuck all about anything shock.

 

[Raven]

Remember, 75% of people don't end up in care homes. Why should they pay tax to fund the 25% who do?

I am happy to fund it, but then I already do. Not sure why I have to twice.

My nieces aren't quite at the getting their own place yet, one is 21 and at Uni, the other 17 and planning on going in the Navy, but I really don't like their chances of getting on any sort of property ladder, having a nest egg (or even an entire home) for one of them is probably the only way they will ever get on the ladder now.

 

[Gwadien]

If your family aren't looking after you at the end of your life, and you've a house and a pension and whatever, and you go into a care home - then those costs should be recouped against YOUR assets. You shouldn't get to keep them, at the expense of the public, and pass them on to your kids. Your assets should be used to look after yourself.

This is how it works? Or am I missing something?

My parents were pretty 'lucky' - my dad's parents had a house etc, neither of them went into a home.

My mum's side had nothing and my nan went into a care home (with extra special care).

Thanks @Scouse

Personally, I think it would be a good idea to incentivise families looking after their own elderly...

 

[Scouse]

Personally, I think it would be a good idea to incentivise families looking after their own elderly...

I agree to a point. But it can be an utterly hateful task and not achieveable for the majority - I wasn't on the best terms with my mum and lived a long way remotely. But still did the best I could. I will get fuck all inheritance because she was worth nothing (save the value of her flat, which we can't sell, and are paying double council tax on). And apart from getting rinsed with council tax for a dead person - I'm absolutely fine with that. If she'd had made it to a care home the council will have taken the value of the flat to fund it within 18 months.

Again - this is correct. You should pay your own way. Your kids don't deserve an inheritance.

@Scouse in understanding fuck all about anything shock.

Hard disagree. I've had ample time to think about all of this when I was seeing my mum off recently.

What, exactly, is it I don't understand? Please be specific.

I really don't like their chances of getting on any sort of property ladder

I agree. So parents, if they want their kids to do that, will have to make more sacrifices.


The only thing where I'm against further taxes is that I think we all were under the impression we were already paying for this all. So I'd absolutely see the welfare bill cut, and very hard, first - before we have tax rises.

But, in the event that I'm due to go into a care home - they can take my fucking house. That's fair. I should pay my own way.

 

[Gwadien]

Not really sure why you skipped the rest of my post - people already do have to give up their homes to pay for care?

 

[Deebs]

Your choice.

But the public shouldn't be funding your invalidity. It shouldn't be free. You should have made preparations for the end of your own life - and not be expecting the "rest of society" to pick up the bill, just so your kids can blow your assets on hookers and coke.

I mean, they can get jobs, just like everyone else, no? Why should I pay tax, today, to fund your inheritance?


(Of course, they already do, but you get my meaning).

So if I pay taxes for 60 years of my life and then stay in hospital for 1 week and say cost the taxpayer £10k yet I would have paid tens of thousands in NI/Tax you are saying tough shit for working hard to pass something along to your kids yet the women who have 4 babies, never worked like the father of their children get given a 4 bed council house and £1k a week to live on?

Yeh fuck right off, you will never convince me that that is fair on a working person who has paid their dues all their working life.

 

[Scouse]

yet the women who have 4 babies, never worked like the father of their children get given a 4 bed council house and £1k a week to live on?

It's worse than that. Just spoke to a mate who was telling me about a no-name who's not legally allowed to bring up his kids because of the shit he's done. His kids live with his mum. She gets nearly 5 grand a month for them.

The no-name lives with his mum.

Which is why I said:

I'd absolutely see the welfare bill cut, and very hard, first - before we have tax rises.

This is Labour's problem. They need to trim the 300bn plus welfare bill. Hard.

But if they won't trim the welfare bill then 100% you should be paying for your own care - rather than me paying extra tax so you can give your kids money after you die.

That's less fair than a death tax.

 

[Tom]

I don't have much of an issue with a simple tax on inheritance, set at a level that can cover the costs of social care. And not just today's costs - but a tax that ensures that carers are paid a decent wage, so we get skilled professionals, and not dickheads who abuse elderly residents. Have a look on council job websites - there are tonnes of carer positions paying barely above minimum wage.

I'd also like the hidden costs covered - like children who remain at home to look after their parents - and who aren't recompensed for it.

I hope Burnham manages to secure the support he needs to sort this out.

 

[Scouse]

I'd also like the hidden costs covered - like children who remain at home to look after their parents - and who aren't recompensed for it.

I don't think we should be paying family for doing what family has done since humans evolved.

It's only recently that we split up family groups wholesale. Hunter gatherer societies look at what we do as madness.

If you can make the moral case for this, then fine. But what would you cut to fund it?