Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Scouse]

I cannot believe how fucking backward this is. Do those in power forget you can go join the Army at 16 where I bet they share all things in person. Fucking twats.

Or at 52 years old, you can navigate life without turning into a terrorist or, in Labour's view, voting in a way they don't like.

If only people were only allowed to read "the truth" (trans women are women, eh?) then they'd vote the way all right thinking people would vote. But there's so much "misinformation" out there (such as trans women are actually genetically men, and sex matters) how are humans supposed to be able to cope?

 

[Scouse]

Andy Burnham 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches

The prime minister compares the allegations against Man City to the plight of his own club Everton.

www.bbc.co.uk

I would be really concerned to lose them.

They've been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester and obviously the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is

Or: "Fuck you plebs and your desire for fairness in your pasttimes, I got oil money invested into Manchester when I was Mayor, so leave them alone"

 

[Scouse]

Didn't know Zak Polanski was really called David Paulden.

What is it with shysters in politics (or adjacent) not using their real names?

 

[Gwadien]

Didn't know Zak Polanski was really called David Paulden.

What is it with shysters in politics (or adjacent) not using their real names?

*sigh*

He changed his name when he was 18 to get back his old 'Jewish' surename after his family changed it to due to anti-semitism (or perceived, or whatever.)

Interesting that you've suddenly found this out, is there a by-election or something where he has a chance of getting in?

I honestly thought you'd be way more bothered by this tbh... Badenoch unveils plan to end £100,000 childcare 'cliff edge' ahead of Tory conference

 

[Scouse]

Interesting that you've suddenly found this out, is there a by-election or something where he has a chance of getting in?

Don't know what I was reading in bed last night but I came across it. It was interesting is all.

Regardless. Read a bit more on it, I get it. But he's still a fucking whackjob chancer. I think he's got a real chance of losing his by-election. But we'll find out on, what, Thursday?

I honestly thought you'd be way more bothered by this tbh... Badenoch unveils plan to end £100,000 childcare 'cliff edge' ahead of Tory conference

I spoke about this already - there's a guy at work who earns probably about 100k. He pays 700 quid a month in salary sacrifice to reduce his take home so he can make £1400/month in child support payments (because he's at that cliff-edge).

This is, effectively, a taxpayer subsidy to car manufacturers - in this case Kia, who's produced some electric landrover-a-like that goes from 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds.

There's a few things at play here. 1) If it didn't fall off a cliff, the taxpayer probably wouldn't be subsidising KIA. Although, when your marginal rate of tax is over 60% when you hit 100 grand, you'd be salary sacrificing on something. 2) Badenouch is right that there are people turning down promotions (and therefore higher tax take) because of this £99,999.99 cliff-edge. You get your child support at that. You get a penny more, and you might as well earn 70 grand.

But my beef with child support is this - you had kids. You pay for them.

Any taxpayer backed subsidy on this is effectively a subsidy to some company or other.

I would taper all benefits gradually in % terms so they reach zero across the board when you make average wage. That way work would still pay - you would still take home more money by earning more. But once you reach average wage then you're on your own.

This would also benefit people most who are on real poverty wages - benefits where they're needed. Work that still pays.


You, of course, are in the short-sighted jealous camp that says we should keep that £100k cliff edge because £100k is lolzroffles you're rich money in your eyes, right? But I'm in the, you earn 40 grand, why the fuck are you getting benefits, camp.

You knew kids were expensive when you had them, right? Why should the rest of the taxpaying public get a shitter health service/not get lifesaving drugs they have elsewhere because you want more holidays every year?

 

[Gwadien]

Don't know what I was reading in bed last night but I came across it. It was interesting is all.

Regardless. Read a bit more on it, I get it. But he's still a fucking whackjob chancer. I think he's got a real chance of losing his by-election. But we'll find out on, what, Thursday?


I spoke about this already - there's a guy at work who earns probably about 100k. He pays 700 quid a month in salary sacrifice to reduce his take home so he can make £1400/month in child support payments (because he's at that cliff-edge).

This is, effectively, a taxpayer subsidy to car manufacturers - in this case Kia, who's produced some electric landrover-a-like that goes from 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds.

There's a few things at play here. 1) If it didn't fall off a cliff, the taxpayer probably wouldn't be subsidising KIA. Although, when your marginal rate of tax is over 60% when you hit 100 grand, you'd be salary sacrificing on something. 2) Badenouch is right that there are people turning down promotions (and therefore higher tax take) because of this £99,999.99 cliff-edge. You get your child support at that. You get a penny more, and you might as well earn 70 grand.

But my beef with child support is this - you had kids. You pay for them.

Any taxpayer backed subsidy on this is effectively a subsidy to some company or other.

I would taper all benefits gradually in % terms so they reach zero across the board when you make average wage. That way work would still pay - you would still take home more money by earning more. But once you reach average wage then you're on your own.

This would also benefit people most who are on real poverty wages - benefits where they're needed. Work that still pays.


You, of course, are in the short-sighted jealous camp that says we should keep that £100k cliff edge because £100k is lolzroffles you're rich money in your eyes, right? But I'm in the, you earn 40 grand, why the fuck are you getting benefits, camp.

You knew kids were expensive when you had them, right? Why should the rest of the taxpaying public get a shitter health service/not get lifesaving drugs they have elsewhere because you want more holidays every year?

Interesting isn't it? You hate Polanski, there's an election coming up and some bullshit 'information' has come to light (yet again) about him changing his name because he's a shyster - we'll ignore the fact it is bullshit and say 'yeah well, look at all the other things'. For a guy that doesn't use social media and isn't a victim of the algorithms, it's very interesting.

Your beef with child support is that you don't have kids, don't want kids, so therefore you don't like child benefits, let's not pretend any different, much like all your new views - mememe, so let's not call me 'jealous' please.

For the record, I think child support should be scrapped and the money put into structured things to give the poorest in society a better start at life. Scrapping child benefits won't stop the poorest having kids, but we can ensure that it's used for the correct reasons, rather than paying for a holiday to Skeg. Which when you think about it is just as much a leftist position as it is a right wing position.

The money should stretch to everyone though - having the poorest having their brood of kids whilst the middle classes aren't having kids because they are more likely to make informed decisions isn't good for the long term for the country.

 

[Scouse]

Interesting isn't it? You hate Polanski, there's an election coming up and some bullshit 'information' has come to light (yet again) about him changing his name because he's a shyster - we'll ignore the fact it is bullshit and say 'yeah well, look at all the other things'. For a guy that doesn't use social media and isn't a victim of the algorithms, it's very interesting.

You're such a consistently whiny conspiracy theorist. I wish you'd stop calling me a liar

Last night I read (my phone history), in bed:

• The Guardian
• The Torygraph
• New Scientist
• New Statesman
• The Spectator
• An absolute rabbit hole on rootstocks and grafting because I want some plum trees, and I need Brompton rootstocks for my land type.

If that's social media algorithms then I'm guilty your honour. But finding out about Zack Mackraken's name is buried in one of them. Probably the Torygraph or the Spectator.

Your beef with child support is that you don't have kids, don't want kids, so therefore you don't like child benefits, let's not pretend any different, much like all your new views - mememe, so let's not call me 'jealous' please.

No my beef with child support is consistent with my beef with all benefits - if you're earning the national average wage then you shouldn't be in receipt of any benefits at all.

Taxpayer money gets spent on all sorts of stuff - health, welfare, education, infrastructure. I think that's a "good thing". But morally there must be limits. And currently our spending is profligate and immoral

The money should stretch to everyone though - having the poorest having their brood of kids whilst the middle classes aren't having kids because they are more likely to make informed decisions isn't good for the long term for the country.

Benefits - welfare - should be for people who desparately need them.

However - welfare should be minimum standard. It should not cater for a significantly increased lifestyle. We need work to perform that function.

One of the ways to have poorer kids have a better shot at life is to have much better schools. But we can't afford that in part because of our broken and massive welfare payment system.

 

[Scouse]

BTW, I'd read the Times or the FT rather than the Torygraph (which is populated by awful people), but their bypass-blockers, unfortunately, work.

Ain't paying for that shit

 

[Raven]

They're all fucking rags.

 

[Scouse]

They're all fucking rags.

Yeah. But you have a choice - the rags or some algorithms.

 

[Scouse]

Good on 'em:

Green party votes to adopt policy that equates Zionism with racism

Motion calling for single Palestinian state, which is opposed by most Green MPs and expected to be challenged, passes by 1,022 votes to 813

www.theguardian.com

 

[DaGaffer]

But my beef with child support is this - you had kids. You pay for them.

So, the cost of raising kids in real terms has more than doubled as a percentage of disposable income since most of us grew up. We also have a demographic timebomb which is mostly (not entirely, but mostly) caused by exactly this. So in actual fact most people very much are paying for their kids and many more people are choosing not to than 30-40 years ago because they can't afford to.

In reality your friend is an edge case but it strikes me as odd that a society that's set it's face against mass immigration, which once again is heavily driven by the demographic timebomb previously mentioned, doesn't fancy subsidising a thing that benefits a stable society most.

As it happens I don't think child allowance payments make even the slightest dent in the cost of raising a child and if we're not going to go back to a situation when families can get by with a single breadwinner while the other can stay home and raise kids (which isn't on the cards as far as I can see) then the place to actually help people have kids that's useful for everyone is free or at least heavily subsidised childcare. Other countries have done it.