Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Gwadien]

Badenoch says Conservatives would ban strikes by NHS doctors

Thousands of resident doctors are currently on strike after a dispute with the government over pay.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ormorof]

Badenoch says Conservatives would ban strikes by NHS doctors

Thousands of resident doctors are currently on strike after a dispute with the government over pay.

www.bbc.co.uk

Of course then they will move to private sector even faster and NHS will be even easier to dismantle

 

[Tom]

I think my private pension will be about 150k-200k by the time I retire, that and a state pension should see me ok. All my other costs should be very low, I won't own a car, the house is already paid for, I cba with subscription services. And I may continue to do some low-level work, like the Bikeability stuff I'm teaching now.

I'll probably move somewhere cheaper too, maybe even out of the country, so a lump sum of the house will be in the bank.

 

[Scouse]

Get ready - removal of the tax efficient way to save into your pension incoming:

Rachel Reeves must raise taxes to cover £41bn gap, says think tank

The chancellor will miss her self-imposed rules without action, the National Institute for Economic Affairs says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour. Making everyone poorer together.

 

[BloodOmen]

Get ready - removal of the tax efficient way to save into your pension incoming:

Rachel Reeves must raise taxes to cover £41bn gap, says think tank

The chancellor will miss her self-imposed rules without action, the National Institute for Economic Affairs says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour. Making everyone poorer together.

Rachel Reeves is worse with numbers than fucking Diane Abbott.

 

[Scouse]

And Labour are flogging off allotments too:

Jeremy Corbyn attacks Angela Rayner for selling off allotments

The ex-Labour leader - and keen gardener - accuses ministers of threatening a British tradition.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Gwadien]

Get ready - removal of the tax efficient way to save into your pension incoming:

Rachel Reeves must raise taxes to cover £41bn gap, says think tank

The chancellor will miss her self-imposed rules without action, the National Institute for Economic Affairs says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour. Making everyone poorer together.

Hang on, weren't you advocating for an increase of taxes when Labour were elected and announced their austerity approach? I might be misremembering so I'm not accusing

 

[BloodOmen]

And Labour are flogging off allotments too:

Jeremy Corbyn attacks Angela Rayner for selling off allotments

The ex-Labour leader - and keen gardener - accuses ministers of threatening a British tradition.

www.bbc.co.uk

That actually makes me angry because you just know, its going to be some fucking eyesore cheap flats put up in their place to cram as many people in as possible.

 

[Gwadien]

That actually makes me angry because you just know, its going to be some fucking eyesore cheap flats put up in their place to cram as many people in as possible.

Well the allotments around me had social housing that mirrored the 1950/60s estates that they were built in.

 

[Embattle]

It seems we need a lot more of everything, but at the same time those same people often say don't change or upset anyone.

 

[Scouse]

Hang on, weren't you advocating for an increase of taxes when Labour were elected and announced their austerity approach? I might be misremembering so I'm not accusing

I've said a rebalancing of the economic system needs to happen. The biggest danger (economically and politically) that we face is the extreme inequality. The existence of multi-billionaires is destabilising - and they hoover up so much of the wealth that what is an incredibly profitable system impoverishes the majority for a tiny tiny minority. (Not the 1% - the 1% is bullshit, it's the 0.0001%).

Hitting employees who want to save for their retirement - so they're less reliant on the state - is not rebalancing the system. It's impoverishing us all, whilst not touching the 0.0001%.

But it gets done because people on the national average wage are jealous of people who earn two, three or four times as much as them. However, the national average wage is suck a poverty clusterfuck that four times that isn't exactly swimming in cash. Relative to national average wages it seems like an amazing amount, but the paucity and poverty of being an average earner is so pronounced that makes it simply not true.

Labour - feck it government in the UK of any flavour - aren't there to help the masses. They simply manage the country as best they can trying to do whatever they can without it falling apart. This is for the rich. And at some point the inequalities of wealth will become so harsh, the poverty so extreme, that no government action can stop it falling apart. But we'll go through a long and increasingly authoritarian death spiral before we do anything about that. We can all see it. It's plain as day. Just that some of us are wilfully looking away. Some of us are genuinely blind to it - maybe because they're distracted by our politics-as-performance.

The money's there to fix our issues. It's not with salaried employees. For people on 120 grand the marginal rate of tax on some of their salary is 63%. The current Labour proposal is to increase that. And the jealous sheep-like average wage earner bays like a mob and goes "yeahhhhhhhhh".

But it will do fuck all but bring more people down into the relative poverty. Like I said:

Labour. Making everyone poorer together.

But they won't fix the problem that will fuck us. You could take a big chunk of the wealth of the richest FIVE people in Britain, still leave them multi-billionaires, and not only plug that hole, but have enough of a massive surplus to build and staff a stack of hospitals too.

That's what I'm on about. Not taxing salaried earners more - they're already being taxed more than they ever have been. But as long as the idiot proles don't understand this, it'll happen.

 

[Gwadien]

I've said a rebalancing of the economic system needs to happen. The biggest danger (economically and politically) that we face is the extreme inequality. The existence of multi-billionaires is destabilising - and they hoover up so much of the wealth that what is an incredibly profitable system impoverishes the majority for a tiny tiny minority. (Not the 1% - the 1% is bullshit, it's the 0.0001%).

Hitting employees who want to save for their retirement - so they're less reliant on the state - is not rebalancing the system. It's impoverishing us all, whilst not touching the 0.0001%.

But it gets done because people on the national average wage are jealous of people who earn two, three or four times as much as them. However, the national average wage is suck a poverty clusterfuck that four times that isn't exactly swimming in cash. Relative to national average wages it seems like an amazing amount, but the paucity and poverty of being an average earner is so pronounced that makes it simply not true.

Labour - feck it government in the UK of any flavour - aren't there to help the masses. They simply manage the country as best they can trying to do whatever they can without it falling apart. This is for the rich. And at some point the inequalities of wealth will become so harsh, the poverty so extreme, that no government action can stop it falling apart. But we'll go through a long and increasingly authoritarian death spiral before we do anything about that. We can all see it. It's plain as day. Just that some of us are wilfully looking away. Some of us are genuinely blind to it - maybe because they're distracted by our politics-as-performance.

The money's there to fix our issues. It's not with salaried employees. For people on 120 grand the marginal rate of tax on some of their salary is 63%. The current Labour proposal is to increase that. And the jealous sheep-like average wage earner bays like a mob and goes "yeahhhhhhhhh".

But it will do fuck all but bring more people down into the relative poverty. Like I said:



But they won't fix the problem that will fuck us. You could take a big chunk of the wealth of the richest FIVE people in Britain, still leave them multi-billionaires, and not only plug that hole, but have enough of a massive surplus to build and staff a stack of hospitals too.

That's what I'm on about. Not taxing salaried earners more - they're already being taxed more than they ever have been. But as long as the idiot proles don't understand this, it'll happen.

Absolutely agree, and I wish Labour had the balls to do it, but they don't - simply because they're playing the political game; taxing the rich is going to get more haters than lovers because everyone thinks it'll make the rich leave and we'll be in the shit, so it's politically more tasteful to lurch to the right, promise to ID brown criminals and deport immigrants whilst economically appealing to the rich and the holders of the levers of power.

I'd have sympathy for people that are heavily anti-immigrant and also see the leftishy economic argument but it doesn't seem to be a thing in this country - funnily enough after the election of Trump we're starting to see this in the US - lots of town hall meetings where GOPers are calling for more taxes on the rich rather than the big beautiful bill.

 

[Scouse]

So, in the meantime, Labour are going to tax people who are trying to save for their retirement.

I wish the electorate was more shooty.

 

[Deebs]

In the Autumn pillaging Labour will mandate that families are all buried on top of one another and those members who wish to be cremated can be thrown in the blue bin for recycling.

 

[Embattle]

The 'one in, one out' policy seems as pointless and overhyped as the Rwanda policy.

 

[Gwadien]

The 'one in, one out' policy seems as pointless and overhyped as the Rwanda policy.

Funnily enough I made a post about this, but forums rip.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense either though - we'll let you in if you do it legit, with the intention of it stopping crossings, but when you actually achieve 0 crossings doesn't that mean all those people waiting will have a go?

 

[Raven]

Wrote to my MP about the porn blocking nonsense, pointing out that they have just forced teenagers onto the dark web and/or dodgy websites, and opened up an entire new scam relating to ID verification. He wants me to come and see him at a surgery.

 

[Raven]

In the Autumn pillaging Labour will mandate that families are all buried on top of one another and those members who wish to be cremated can be thrown in the blue bin for recycling.

I've already told my family to put me out with the food recycling. I have no interest in a funeral, or being remembered.

 

[Embattle]

I've already told my family to put me out with the food recycling. I have no interest in a funeral, or being remembered.

I'd be more concerned about when you can't remember

 

[Deebs]

I've already told my family to put me out with the food recycling. I have no interest in a funeral, or being remembered.

Who are you?

 

[Overdriven]

Who are you?

Iirc he was the village cuck.

 

[Deebs]

Iirc he was the village cuck.

Ah that's why I do not remember him.

 

[BloodOmen]

Nigel Farage erupts as 211 people in migrant hotels charged with 425 crimes

Reform UK leader warns that the true figure 'could be even higher'

www.express.co.uk

If and I do mean IF those figures are real, that is fucking horrific.

 

[Gwadien]

Nigel Farage erupts as 211 people in migrant hotels charged with 425 crimes

Reform UK leader warns that the true figure 'could be even higher'

www.express.co.uk

If and I do mean IF those figures are real, that is fucking horrific.

I'm actually surprised it's that low, Farage would lead me to believe at least half of the 50k or so people in hotels had committed crime.

But think about the situation they're in - if they've come over on a boat, they've already broken the law, they're already exposed to criminals. Combine that with them not being able to do anything and being called a nonce if they're in the vicinity of children everywhere they go and being alone in a foreign country.

What would you consider to be a realistically acceptable figure?

 

[BloodOmen]

I'm actually surprised it's that low, Farage would lead me to believe at least half of the 50k or so people in hotels had committed crime.

But think about the situation they're in - if they've come over on a boat, they've already broken the law, they're already exposed to criminals. Combine that with them not being able to do anything and being called a nonce if they're in the vicinity of children everywhere they go and being alone in a foreign country.

What would you consider to be a realistically acceptable figure?

Realistically? that's hard to answer.. ideally I would say zero but obviously fucking 100,000 people are going to have bad apples.

Let me math this out based on 211/425 crimes vs 100,000 across the country in hotels

On average 4.25 crimes per 1000 people if i'm not shit at math.

The government definitely need to be doing more to vet out the bad apples because those figures are just unacceptable. The government need to care less about our social media posts and focus more on the backgrounds of migrants until they have the immigration figures under control.

 

[DaGaffer]

Realistically? that's hard to answer.. ideally I would say zero but obviously fucking 100,000 people are going to have bad apples.

Let me math this out based on 211/425 crimes vs 100,000 across the country in hotels

On average 4.25 crimes per 1000 people if i'm not shit at math.

The government definitely need to be doing more to vet out the bad apples because those figures are just unacceptable. The government need to care less about our social media posts and focus more on the backgrounds of migrants until they have the immigration figures under control.

UK Crime rate is currently 70 per 1000 people...

And it's "maths". You're not a tourist.

https://crimerate.co.uk/

 

[Gwadien]

I also think you should do it based on criminals, not crimes, it's kinda misleading as you can be charged for multiple crimes in one arrest.

The reason why they are in the hotels is because they are being processed, that's the point - they investigate the people that are claiming asylum and that's usually where they find out they're bad apples.

I find it ironic that you've said they need to care less about social media posts, because what you're talking about is exactly that.

Immigrants in hotels isn't the problem

People on boats isn't the problem

The problem is why are so many people trying to come over in such a short amount of time? The asylum process is what it is, it's long and laborious and there's always going to be social issues when there's a surge in migration, we could put them in concentration camps and paint the buildings with smiley faces but I think that'd look bad, but then it could happen with the anti-woke crusade. It might turn a bit Children of Men-y too.

They're coming here because other parts of the world are really shit, and getting shitter and we've (as in the UK & US) stopped giving them lots of money, so expect more. So we either build the humane capacity in line with international laws to process people at an acceptable rate and deport if necessary or we drop human rights and put gunboats in the channels, there isn't really a middle ground.

I don't think protesting at hotels and harassing people in parks and accusing them of being a paedophile because they're foreign, male and in a park is really helpful.

 

[BloodOmen]

Immigrants in hotels isn't the problem

People on boats isn't the problem

That's not what I'm saying and I know I keep bringing immigration up - you HAVE to be critical of people in these situations though, you cannot just stick your head in the sand and give all of them a free pass like they're never going to do anything wrong. I think this is the main problem the government is now facing, the sheer numbers and no real vetting as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to sound like a complete nazi here but as a parent and my worries as a parent i can't sound like anything but in the circumstances - and i'm going to post this in big fat bold letters so we dont get our wires crossed


I DON'T THINK ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC UNTIL THEIR ASYLUM CLAIM IS APPROVED AND I THINK THAT APPROVAL PROCESS REQUIRES EXTRA ATTENTION TO THE VETTING.

Would that completely eliminate the issues? no, it would unarguably lessen them though.

 

[Gwadien]

That's not what I'm saying and I know I keep bringing immigration up - you HAVE to be critical of people in these situations though, you cannot just stick your head in the sand and give all of them a free pass like they're never going to do anything wrong. I think this is the main problem the government is now facing, the sheer numbers and no real vetting as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to sound like a complete nazi here but as a parent and my worries as a parent i can't sound like anything but in the circumstances - and i'm going to post this in big fat bold letters so we dont get our wires crossed


I DON'T THINK ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC UNTIL THEIR ASYLUM CLAIM IS APPROVED AND I THINK THAT APPROVAL PROCESS REQUIRES EXTRA ATTENTION TO THE VETTING.

Would that completely eliminate the issues? no, it would unarguably lessen them though.

That's because you're believing the social media bullshit.

As Gaffer just pointed out, you should be more worried about the rest of the population...

So let's think about your big bold letters - let's lock people up for no crime committed for a couple of years?

Other than that's a pretty big no-no human rights wise, what about the psychological damage you're causing to these people, some of which would be accepted and be in society?

 

[BloodOmen]

That's because you're believing the social media bullshit.

As Gaffer just pointed out, you should be more worried about the rest of the population...

So let's think about your big bold letters - let's lock people up for no crime committed for a couple of years?

Other than that's a pretty big no-no human rights wise, what about the psychological damage you're causing to these people, some of which would be accepted and be in society?

Wrong. Social media bullshit would be all migrants are rapists - actual figures would dictate otherwise.


Low hanging fruit would be "All migrants are rapists"

Actual optics are: a large portion of migrants are committing crime (note, I didn't say rapists)