Would you vote conservative again?

So what will labour do better? Where will they take the money from to fund those who don't pay much in the way of tax at all? Do you think that it would be better to have a continuation of artificially low interest rates and a stagnant economy for ever more?

No, but just looked at it on Amazon. Confirms my opinion that Rees-Mogg is actually evil.

Why is it at your expense?
Because tory policies prioritise keeping the rich rich and I'm not rich. For example, the policies of the government have stoked inflation to more than 10% and tanked the pound. The effect of those policies on me is that my salary - which has increased by 2% this year - buys considerably less than it did last year and further excludes me from pretty basic needs like housing security and dental treatment. Those same policies have proved substantially more beneficial to others.
"Tory donor Chris Rokos makes a fortune from market turmoil | News | The Times" www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-donor-chris-rokos-makes-a-fortune-from-market-turmoil-crwvvq6nj
"Tory donor says bets against UK government bonds ‘gifts that keep giving’ | Bank of England | The Guardian" amp.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/27/tory-donor-says-bets-against-uk-government-bonds-gifts-that-keep-giving

Blossomtoes · Today 00:42

The Kings Fund report you linked basically concludes that Labour met its funding and investment targets but that it made very little difference to patient outcomes or staffing? It actually says what most non-Labour voters accuse them of - throwing money at something but with no gain in productivity or output.
“Verdict: Target met, thanks to unprecedented increases in investment. However, questions remain over the productivity of the NHS and the value for money that taxpayers are getting for their investment”
And we know that the NHS infra structure investment was funded through PFI
www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/nhs-hospitals-under-strain-over-80bn-pfi-bill-for-just-13bn-of-actual-investment-finds-ippr

I’m not in any way advocating that the latest conservative govt have done any better with the NHS but I also can’t see that the last Labour govt achieved anything significant either.

Yeh no need to be coy and keep people guessing for him. If he wants to be clear and quit gender lies then state it up front.

Of course labour will bring in self ID. Keir says he will. If hes changed his mind on that then he needs to say he has so people can decide to vote for Labour or not. But he won't. Because he hasn't changed his mind.

twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1402586773499244549?t=l5lVZtk14Gw7-RFEKE7O7w&s=08

Sorry for the shit pink news link.

Another issue is the attitude of labour towards the rich, or actually pretty much anyone above mw! On mumsnet a household income if 60k, so very much lower end of squeezed middle, whenever mentioned is vilified as rich and not needing any help. When uc brings up the majority of lower earners to similar so they end up with the same or more disposable income. The very poorest get help with rent and special rates on bills. Who exactly are labour going to tax as the rich? Even workers on 100k or more live mostly on their paychecks. We need to find a way to tax wealth.

I don’t think labour will bring in self ID. Their vote is split into 2 groups, red wall type working adults, and lefty students/younger people. They lost the red wall vote and are now mainly left with students so are giving out the trans spiel to appease them. Once they’ve won their working class adult voters back, they won’t dare risk losing them by introducing self ID etc because they know they can’t win on the student vote alone.

Have you read The Sovereign Individual?

This. It’s crazy to suggest because one dislikes Tories one would vote Labour even though they currently have zero policies on the table. It would at least be sensible to say ‘let’s see what the policies are’ but nope.

I will vote Tory. I don’t trust the current Labour Party. And I can hardly fight or vote for women’s rights when in one swoop we won’t be able to define ‘woman’ in the first place.

Good for them (the Tories). I really think we could do with more of that in politics. If the other side have a good idea, take it. Its absolutely stupid to just dismiss something because that's what the other side want, prime example, wind fall tax. The only reason I can see that the Tories won't do it is because Labour are advocating for it. Well, that and the fact they like to funnel money from poor people to rich people.

If it wasn’t for the gender lies and the inflationary demands they’d struggle to not meet or meet it’d been interesting to see how they’d deal with all the high expectations for doing something differently.

Public sector, Wales, free school meals.. I’m sure many more all saying at same time ok you’re not Tories where’s our money.

Tory policy does appear to be to wreck the economy so spectacularly that no other party could ever again resurrect a welfare state, free education, free healthcare or viable state-funded infrastructure available for all. Then the concentration of wealth and power in private hands and the loss of tiresome democracy will have been achieved… Yay!

How will they deliver better outcomes? And how do you measure those better outcomes?

If labour get in then they will introduce self ID, which will be a disaster for women's rights. I don't want the tories in but I really don't want self ID - the thought of it is terrifying, so I'm not really sure to be honest.

I don't know what you mean - where did I say I think the wealthy will notice or suffer? They obviously won't. Labour have historically delivered better outcomes for public services. They won't be able to work miracles with the shitshow they are inheriting but I'm confident they won't wilfully make it worse, unlike the Tories.

I didn’t say it, so I can’t answer that, obviously, as “you” is not “me.”…However, it does answer the question in that wealth is trickling up to a tiny minority who have profited from the last 15 years of economic policy and it is not trickling down. Or have you not noticed?

The wealthy will barely notice. I think you'll find it's the squeezed middle that will notice. Which category do you fall in to? And why / how do you think labour will deliver a better outcome for healthcare and public services? More borrowing? More squeezing of the middle?

There won’t be much room under Labour for further funding. A one off WFT is only £8bn and I can’t imagine scrapping non dom will raise much, as they have the most options in terms of countries welcoming their wealth.

As an economist said tinkering around the edges wont bring enough which would mean tax rises. I’m not against this in theory but they are at a 70 year high apparently atm so will be higher - and does it deepen recession

Of course it's at our expense - if we have poor healthcare and other outcomes because public services are not being properly funded in order to concentrate wealth in the hands of the already-wealthy, than the expense to us all is massive.

That doesn't really answer the question. Why is it at your expense?

I suspect because that’s true. Power and wealth are being concentrated in a diminishing number of hands. It’s trickle up economics.

@Halloweenshock my local greens (Scotland) are such seriously awesome people, I can’t understand why they’ve tethered themselves to the party. 🤷‍♀️

Why is it at your expense?

I agree that peace has been jeopardised in Northern Ireland. And by rights Brexit shouldn't have gone ahead because of this. We are now where we are.

Question: What will Keir Starmer do better for Northern Ireland?