[Politics] General Election 2024 - 4th July

[Stato]

The point I'm making is that it's not a black and white answer and nothing ever is. This thread will be a lot more interesting if everyone accepts that.

The Facebook post you're replying to is clearly not right and you've called it out, fair enough. But you've ended up quoting an article that plays semantics with what constitutes a benefit. You've cherry picked a single phrase and then accused me of not reading the whole article when the article clearly states that asylum seekers are entitled to benefits, just not mainstream benefits like UC, CB etc.

There is a huge difference between arguing over semantics and spreading lies. The original Facebook post was a lie designed to link Starmer with outrage over the government paying anything to asylum seekers. It was a bad faith claim intended to prey upon prejudice. The corrective post, whether you are happy with the semantics or not, wouldn't have been necessary had the lie not been told in the first place. By trying to suggest some equivalency between the two things you are leaning towards the 'all as bad as each other' myth.

 

[rogersix]

FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!

I think you're getting your terminology confused, it can be very tricky when words look similar but mean different things

 

[clapham_gull]

FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!

I suspect when the time comes you'll forget to vote anyway after spending your day reading fake news on facebook.

 

[Weststander]

I don't really know quite what you're referring to. I think UK politics is pretty toxic on all sides. People on both left and right (I don't like these lablels but accept them for the moment) are mostly obstinate and convinced that their perspective represents a sort of decent, common-sense centreground. I just refuse to believe that this monolithic sense of being 'correct' is the preserve of only one side or the other. I see it everywhere I look.

Will we all get cosy and consensual if the Tories get wiped out at the next GE? Of course not. Not only will the right be pissed-off and start to regroup (very possibly shifting more rightwards as they do so) but the traditional left will get quickly frustrated with Starmer and Reeves as it's suddenly clear (even clearer than it is now) that they're not radical socialists after all but a party seemingly committed to more of the same. I agree that UK politics is in a critical situation but I just don't believe that any single party, acting alone, has the answers. While the Tories have been chaotic, Labour refuses to even mention the two principal causes of the global turndown -- the pandemic and Ukraine. Not a single mention of these issues in Labour's analysis of the country's woes.

I agree with all of this. The likes of Coogan, Abbott, Chakrabarti and some union leaders will be looking to pressure and then disrupt Labour if and when they don’t get what they demand immediately, using social media to whip up anger. Blair was largely able to dismiss it with a huge majority and a very oiled political machine with ‘henchmen’ Campbell, Mandelson, John Reid etc. Starmer needs that too.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is it? Let's check as we go shall we...


NOT FACT - The government, not the Labour Party was taken to court.


NOT FACT - They didn't demand benefits. Asylum Seekers didn't and still don't qualify for benefits. The rules governing the levels of financial assistance that asylum seekers do receive preceed this court case.


NOT FACT - The asylum seekers may have been represented by Starmer, but they were not 'defended' by him, because they weren't the defendants. The government was the defendant. Starmer was one of several lawyers acting for those parties who brought the case against the government.


NOT FACT - Before the court case, asylum seekers were already provided with financial assistance and accommodation. The court case was to challenge legislation that said that such assistance could be refused based on how soon after arriving the asylum claim was made. All the case did was rule that assistance that was already available couldn't be refused on such grounds. The responsbility for governments to provide assistance to those seeking refuge has been UK law under various statutes since 1948.


FACT - Of course, only you really know the answer to this one, but I'm happy to take your word.

Info from: - https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-court-illegal-immigrants/

Well done for smoking out wanky confirmation bias

I don't have a problem when people believe shit. That's their look out. It does irritate me when they lie about it, though.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Either I see too much social media, or (more likely) I see the world through a different lens. I've no great commitment to any party whereas I suspect you might. This is absolutely not a criticism. Think what you want. But I've been fascinated by politics since 1970 (and did a degree in it as it happens -- though that's not where I really learnt about it). I just find it hard to get too invested in any side, and prefer to try to understand why people believe the things they do, rather than fall in with one side or the other. I think that while the mechanisms of political discourse -- the way we evaluate and discuss things, the way that parliament operates, the way we have to vote for representation, the way we rely on slogans -- remain so clearly broken and wrong, I can't get too invested in any leader or party. I think getting older has something to do with it as well. I think I've lost all sense that I can effect change.

I know where you are coming from. Rightly or wrongly I consider the present government are a real danger and need to be replaced. Starmer is disliked by the hard left, which is fine by me. I'm a labour member but consider a large swathe of the activists to be lefty wankers. I am optimistic I may soon get a government I like

 

[Giraffe]

The Tories know they are going to lose. Best get on with it. The sooner they get Labour in, the sooner Labour will make a mess of it and the sooner can rebuild behind a proper leader. Election in the first half of the year quite likely.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The Tories know they are going to lose. Best get on with it. The sooner they get Labour in, the sooner Labour will make a mess of it and the sooner can rebuild behind a proper leader. Election in the first half of the year quite likely.

You do realise that the chances of you being able to vote Johnson into power again are really VERY slim

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The Tories know they are going to lose. Best get on with it. The sooner they get Labour in, the sooner Labour will make a mess of it and the sooner can rebuild behind a proper leader. Election in the first half of the year quite likely.

Almost as amusing as @Steve Foster backing Mad Lizzie‘s budget.

 

[Weststander]

I worked mine to be c£63 a month better off (maximum being 2% of 50,268 - 12,500)

However Osbourne cost me a significant amount over the years with his personal allowance meddling

Osborn only hurt those with income greater than £100k with personal allowance changes. Lucky you for being loaded.

 

[Motogull]

It is a shame we will have to put up with all the shite in the lead up to an election. I'm ready to vote and I'm in a new constituency now.

 

[Bob!]

.........
Already, those of a more racist persuasion will ..... immediately find Reform UK a more attractive proposition. I'm not surprised they are polling at 8% and it could easily go double digit within the next few months.

But how are they going to vote in a GE?

I can't see Reform UK putting up candidates in every current Tory seat, so those 8%+ of the vote are likely going Tory, surely?

 

[Zeberdi]

The Tories know they are going to lose. Best get on with it. The sooner they get Labour in, the sooner Labour will make a mess of it and the sooner can rebuild behind a proper leader. Election in the first half of the year quite likely.

And how long after that will it take for the Tories to sort their shit out and be ready to come back and ru(i)n the Country again?

 

[Weststander]

Already snowing (on the White Mountains) in Crete - I spoke to someone there this morning.

Stavros?

 

[Eeyore]

I can see where Surrey Phil got his words from. Facebook isn't known as the best place to find FACTS!

View attachment 170181

As Gandhi once said 'You should always try to establish facts before you randomly re-post information you find online'

 

[golddene]

Oh I completely agree, but the Tories will still pick up the vast majority of the pensioner vote though, more for cultural reasons rather than financial thought. Any votes the tories can claw back from gullible workers could make the difference between a wipeout and a more manageable defeat.

If the Tories start to lose the over 60 vote then they will disappear.

Don’t be so judgemental, not all over 60s vote Tory, I for one have Never voted for them and Never will, there are plenty of my generation who are of the same opinion.

 

[Giraffe]

You do realise that the chances of you being able to vote Johnson into power again are really VERY slim

Frankly yes. But anyone would be better than Rishi - arguably the best Labour PM this country has had!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

He’s Sorry Phil now.

FACT - @Surrey Phil feels a bit of a twit after your comprehensive take down.

 

[abc]

Labour denies abandoning £28bn green pledge

Labour says it plans to 'ramp up' investment in its green plan, but the policy has already been watered down.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not sure if I respect labour for a (alleged) determination to stick to fiscal rules or to take this as a warning that their pre election promises will as likely to be fulfilled as the Tories are to become full of integrity and honesty. But overalI found this story quite depressing

 

[Weststander]

Labour denies abandoning £28bn green pledge

Labour says it plans to 'ramp up' investment in its green plan, but the policy has already been watered down.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not sure if I respect labour for a (alleged) determination to stick to fiscal rules or to take this as a warning that their pre election promises will as likely to be fulfilled as the Tories are to become full of integrity and honesty. But overalI found this story quite depressing

If it’s not in the manifesto, then they’ve been straight.

(Put to one side omnipresent party political bitching online) there never was a magic money tree, it’s an incredibly difficult balancing act of meeting all needs. Short term needs where people will literally die or suffer now eg hospitals, homeless, care versus the medium/long term. With public sector wage demands etc. Aside from fiscal matters, in an increasingly risky world eg Putin, OPEC playing games, energy security is required.