General Election

[deesidejambo]

 Yip, afraid so,  he is full of compassion, understanding and has a  humanitarian outlook on those less fortunate.

 

Fools be them who do have the above human traits these evil nasty poor people who just want benefits to sit around ans smoke fags and watch Sky TV.

 

And what do those organisations such as UNICEF actually know about child poverty or the causes for it in relation to this Tory rat pack.

 

Only weak fools care about those in poverty. 

So would you scrap the Rape Clause?

 

Simple short yes/no will suffice.

 

Would you?

[redm]

I'd tend to agree but thats campaigning for you!  It worked for the Brexit vote.

 

But it happens all the time - the rape clause was an attempt by the Tories to give women who were raped more tax credits.   Money that they would otherwise not be entitled to.     But that is jumped on a somehow "evil" by those who don't understand what the intent was.

 

It would be ironic if the Tories dropped the clause and capped the tax credits to two children.   Part of me says they should drop it just to spite the fools who didn't understand its intent.

 

Will be interesting to see what they do.

 

The cap was an attempt to take welfare support from the people who need it most. To make cuts and take money from the most vulnerable, because they're the ones who have little to no voice or influence. The vast majority of those currently in receipt of it are also working by the way. Let's not dress it up as anything else - I'm certainly not going to find myself agreeing that poor people should think themselves fortunate that there's any welfare support at all and it's completely batshit to suggest that a woman who has been raped should be thinking herself lucky because she can still claim support "she otherwise wouldn't be entitled to". 

 

Forcing a woman to disclose something like this on someone else's terms is absolutely "evil", though. I'll go with that description. There's a very good set of reasons why experts, charities, support organisations and health professionals are all condemning this move in no uncertain terms.

 

If you're struggling to comprehend the human impact of this clause, check out Kezia Dugdale today in parliament. She reads out a letter she received and if it doesn't make you question the ethics or morality of this clause, I don't know what will. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/ScottishLabourParty/videos/1363523673739829/

[deesidejambo]

The cap was an attempt to take welfare support from the people who need it most. To make cuts and take money from the most vulnerable, because they're the ones who have little to no voice or influence. The vast majority of those currently in receipt of it are also working by the way. Let's not dress it up as anything else - I'm certainly not going to find myself agreeing that poor people should think themselves fortunate that there's any welfare support at all and it's completely batshit to suggest that a woman who has been raped should be thinking herself lucky because she can still claim support "she otherwise wouldn't be entitled to".

 

Forcing a woman to disclose something like this on someone else's terms is absolutely "evil", though. I'll go with that description. There's a very good set of reasons why experts, charities, support organisations and health professionals are all condemning this move in no uncertain terms.

 

If you're struggling to comprehend the human impact of this clause, check out Kezia Dugdale today in parliament. She reads out a letter she received and if it doesn't make you question the ethics or morality of this clause, I don't know what will.

 

https://www.facebook.com/ScottishLabourParty/videos/1363523673739829/

So would you scrap the rape clause?

 

Yes/no?

[redm]

So would you scrap the Rape Clause?

 

Simple short yes/no will suffice.

 

Would you?

 

The rape clause doesn't exist in isolation. It's a provision within and component of the child cap.

Are you asking if the child cap should exist with no exemption provisions at all? 

[Victorian]

Mooth's continued diabolical campaign of abdicating responsibility for it on to the Scottish Government needs fully and completely called out. I'll accept one half hearted attempt at deflection but her continual snash is absolutely lamentable.

[redm]

Mooth's continued diabolical campaign of abdicating responsibility for it on to the Scottish Government needs fully and completely called out. I'll accept one half hearted attempt at deflection but her continual snash is absolutely lamentable.

 

It's all sorts of desperate. Last line of defence stuff, that. Like punching someone in face then telling them it's all their own fault for failing to get out of the way. 

[Victorian]

It's all sorts of desperate. Last line of defence stuff, that. Like punching someone in face then telling them it's all their own fault for failing to get out of the way.

Worst thing is that she appears to be quite convinced.

[deesidejambo]

The rape clause doesn't exist in isolation. It's a provision within and component of the child cap.

Are you asking if the child cap should exist with no exemption provisions at all?

No.

 

The problem is not the rape clause, it's the cap.

 

People are screaming for the rape clause to be scrapped but not the cap.

 

That tells me they don't understand the underlying issue.

 

You understand by your post that the cap is what is what should be screamed about.

 

Others on this thread don't understand though. And I see them as fools.

[redm]

No.

 

The problem is not the rape clause, it's the cap.

 

People are screaming for the rape clause to be scrapped but not the cap.

 

That tells me they don't understand the underlying issue.

 

You understand by your post that the cap is what is what should be screamed about.

 

Others on this thread don't understand though. And I see them as fools.

 

This line of argument is just obfuscation though. The cap is a problem, the rape clause is a problem. They're both now passed as legislation and they're both awful but one element is particularly barbaric and inhumane and therefore it's getting more attention. It is also being used to demonstrate why the whole idea is just a complete cluster****. It's badly written, hasn't been thought out, has wide-ranging effects on vulnerable people and is considered to be pretty unworkable by the third party professionals who are supposed to implement it.

 

I worry more about those who don't understand (or don't care to understand) the human impact tbh, I'm much much less concerned about those who might not offer explicit acknowledgement of the relationship between the cap and the clause.

 

Did you watch Kezia's speech?

[deesidejambo]

This line of argument is just obfuscation though. The cap is a problem, the rape clause is a problem. They're both now passed as legislation and they're both awful but one element is particularly barbaric and inhumane and therefore it's getting more attention. It is also being used to demonstrate why the whole idea is just a complete cluster****. It's badly written, hasn't been thought out, has wide-ranging effects on vulnerable people and is considered to be pretty unworkable by the third party professionals who are supposed to implement it.

 

I worry more about those who don't understand (or don't care to understand) the human impact tbh, I'm much much less concerned about those who might not acknowledge the relationship between the cap and the clause.

 

Did you watch Kezia's speech?

No I didn't watch the speech but I think we agree (?) that the cap is an issue.

 

But the rape clause is a seperate issue which bypasses the cap and actually allows extra payments to rape victims.

 

So- on the basis that the cap is legislated - would you then scrap the rape clause?

 

People are screaming for the rape clause to be binned but are silent on the cap. These people are fools as they think they are helping the victims by scrapping the clause but in practice it's the other way round.

 

But anyway, fk it. Bin the rape clause and leave the cap as-is. Then they are happy.

[deesidejambo]

No I didn't watch the speech but I think we agree (?) that the cap is an issue.

 

But the rape clause is a seperate issue which bypasses the cap and actually allows extra payments to rape victims.

 

So- on the basis that the cap is legislated - would you then scrap the rape clause?

 

People are screaming for the rape clause to be binned but are silent on the cap. These people are fools as they think they are helping the victims by scrapping the clause but in practice it's the other way round.

 

But anyway, fk it. Bin the rape clause and leave the cap as-is. Then they are happy.

Sorry forgot to add.

 

I am happy to debate with you as you politely put counterpoints to argue against me. That is good as it makes me think so thanks for that.

 

With that in mind- do you have a quick summary of Dugdales main points? Genuinely interested to head from a perspective that I probably dont have.

[redm]

No I didn't watch the speech but I think we agree (?) that the cap is an issue.

 

But the rape clause is a seperate issue which bypasses the cap and actually allows extra payments to rape victims.

 

So- on the basis that the cap is legislated - would you then scrap the rape clause?

 

People are screaming for the rape clause to be binned but are silent on the cap. These people are fools as they think they are helping the victims by scrapping the clause but in practice it's the other way round.

 

But anyway, fk it. Bin the rape clause and leave the cap as-is. Then they are happy.

 

I wish you would watch it. It's very very relevant to our discussion. It's easier not to hear the words of those who would be directly affected though, I get that. It's probably much easier to defend when it's something that other people have to deal with in real terms. 

 

I don't know why you're fixating on the cap/clause thing but if you want to know then yes, I'd scrap the whole thing, It's a complete mess. The third child in a family isn't the problem here and they certainly aren't the ones who should suffer when life doesn't go according to plan.

 

Also, a thought that I've had a few times today, I wonder how many of those who support implementation of the cap and the clause are also anti-abortion or seek to limit those rights? I bet there's a crossover in some cases. 

[redm]

Sorry forgot to add.

 

I am happy to debate with you as you politely put counterpoints to argue against me. That is good as it makes me think so thanks for that.

 

With that in mind- do you have a quick summary of Dugdales main points? Genuinely interested to head from a perspective that I probably dont have.

 

Her delivery is worth watching but if you can't view for whatever reason, I'll see if I can find a transcript for you. A summary wouldn't do it justice, and especially not the part when she reads the letter.

[deesidejambo]

Her delivery is worth watching but if you can't view for whatever reason, I'll see if I can find a transcript for you. A summary wouldn't do it justice, and especially not the part when she reads the letter.

No it OK. I trust you that it had relevance and probably came from a different perspective than mine so I'll watch it myself.

 

Thanks for pointing it out to me.

 

Btw I love Kezia- possibly a bit of a lightweight between Nicola and Ruth but this GE may be an opportunity for her to grab some of the issues and drive the debate.

 

I hope so anyway.

[JyTees]

 

Do I agree with the cap? Certainly. If you can't afford to have more than two children why should the state/taxpayers pay for them? Certain parts of our society have taken advantage of popping them out as quickly and freely as possible. Absolute dregs whose sole contribution to the world is to have as many kids as they can and drain as much out of society as is humanly possible. It's becoming generational in certain parts of the country. A profession handed down the family. 30 year old Grannies Ffs. Kids being literally dragged up by uneducated parents having no chance whatsoever. Being from the West side of the city and growing up in the 70's and 80's I know, I grew up in the thick of it. It was pretty much the start of it. It's been allowed to fester for decades, exponentially gathering momentum. It's going to break sooner rather than later.

 

Regarding the rape clause. In the extremely rare and extraordinary event of a child being born under these circumstances, a mother can apply for an exemption on having their tax credits capped. Is this not a safeguard against punishing these extremely unfortunate victims? Is this not showing some compassion? Pretty sure there would've? been plenty said if there hadn't been some sort of exemption.

 

Let's not forget, if the two children cap and rape clause is such a disgrace, why don't the Scottish government provide a new one? Too expensive? I doubt it.

 

I await the clamber of the morally superior...

[JamboX2]

I thought Kezia Dugdale showed the leader she could be with that soeech. Powerful, provocative and heartfelt. Reminded me of some of her campaign soeeches in 2016.

 

On the clause: abhorrent.

 

On the cap: abhorrent.

 

This is social engineering against the poor and the vulnerable.

 

Today was a great day for cross party efforts in Scotland. Labour, SNP, Liberal and Green together.

 

The objection has been strong and vocal.

 

Now time to end this in Scotland. Now is the time to act.

[Sten Guns]

I absolutely 100% agree with the two child cap.

 

Living on welfare for many has been clear lifestyle choice for far to long.

 

It's wrong. Very wrong. It's rightly being tackled.

 

I'm no Tory but I can see why this is being done. I don't treat my Politics like Sport. I'm able to see good and bad in all parties. No blinkers here.

 

Frightening how many people on here do treat their politics like a football team. It makes us all a little more stupid.

[Hasselhoff]

Good article about the rape clause - gutter politics by the majority

 

https://theweeflea.com/2017/04/25/the-tory-rape-clause-and-the-descent-of-scottish-politics/

[Thunderstruck]

Good article about the rape clause - gutter politics by the majority

 

https://theweeflea.com/2017/04/25/the-tory-rape-clause-and-the-descent-of-scottish-politics/

It is a good article and one that many on here (irrespective of standpoint) would benefit from reading.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Good article about the rape clause - gutter politics by the majority

 

https://theweeflea.com/2017/04/25/the-tory-rape-clause-and-the-descent-of-scottish-politics/

Thanks for sharing as I had no idea what it was.

 

Sounds to me like a bureaucratic waste of time in terms of restricting child benefit to be honest. The other part of the equation that's missing here is how much is saved by the restriction. At that point you can do a cost benefit analysis before considering the "barbarity" of this clause.

[Bindy Badgy]

Does anyone have any idea what the cost of scrapping the cap is? I haven't been following this particularly closely and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not? I haven't seen it in any of the articles I've skimmed through...

[deesidejambo]

Does anyone have any idea what the cost of scrapping the cap is? I haven't been following this particularly closely and I'm not sure if this is common knowledge or not? I haven't seen it in any of the articles I've skimmed through...

I've not seen data either but I would be surprised if its significant. But it's more a matter of principle.

 

The rape clause in particular if enacted would probably lose the Govt an insignificant sum so I bet they wish they hadn't bothered.

 

The point is that it's now dawning on people that it's the cap that's the problem but they continue to campaign only against the Clause.

 

And some people still think it's child benefit that are being capped. That's incorrect also.

[Hasselhoff]

Thanks for sharing as I had no idea what it was.

 

Sounds to me like a bureaucratic waste of time in terms of restricting child benefit to be honest. The other part of the equation that's missing here is how much is saved by the restriction. At that point you can do a cost benefit analysis before considering the "barbarity" of this clause.

Child benefit is not affected, it is child tax credits

 

Do have to wonder what the cost would be to just allow someone to claim additional money without confirming they have spoken to a specialist. I'd hope most people are honest enough to not claim extra money by pretending they had a kid in that way.

 

If it seems like people are lying and it is costing a fortune then review it.

[Sten Guns]

Seriously, how many people will the "rape clause" actually affect?

 

Not only does it help, it must be 0.000001% of the population.

 

Sure, debate it, but my god there's surely far more pressing and bigger issues at hand.

 

Typical tabloid rhetoric.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Child benefit is not affected, it is child tax credits

 

Do have to wonder what the cost would be to just allow someone to claim additional money without confirming they have spoken to a specialist. I'd hope most people are honest enough to not claim extra money by pretending they had a kid in that way.

 

If it seems like people are lying and it is costing a fortune then review it.

I stand corrected but the principle applies.

[Don Dan]

The latest policy stuff up being exposed. I wonder if protests about this one will reach fever pitch.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/experts-say-scottish-government-s-property-tax-is-flawed-1-4429291

[Bindy Badgy]

I've not seen data either but I would be surprised if its significant. But it's more a matter of principle.

 

The rape clause in particular if enacted would probably lose the Govt an insignificant sum so I bet they wish they hadn't bothered.

 

Unfortunately, you're probably correct on both counts. I've never seen why changes to policy are viewed as 'embarrassing climb downs' and so on. Acknowledging that an error has been made and amending a policy should be encouraged.

[Norm]

Unfortunately, you're probably correct on both counts. I've never seen why changes to policy are viewed as 'embarrassing climb downs' and so on. Acknowledging that an error has been made and amending a policy should be encouraged.

Yup. A government that enacts policies but scraps them if they don't work is a good government in my books.

[frankblack]

Unfortunately, you're probably correct on both counts. I've never seen why changes to policy are viewed as 'embarrassing climb downs' and so on. Acknowledging that an error has been made and amending a policy should be encouraged.

 

It would be nice if Nicola would take your advice rather than plough on regardless with a grievance for Indy 2.

[Victorian]

Error acknowledgement and policy amending does not demonstrate the kind of strength, trustworthiness and competency that the Tories are hawking around as the one, single, absolute reason why they must remain in power to deliver Brexit and it's resultant outcomes. A government that plainly can't set a coherent budget and make basic reforms to benefit rules is hardly likely to hold it's own in negotiations with the wolf pack of the EU.

 

The Tories are hell bent on turning this election campaign into a basic us or them nod of the head to who should manage Brexit. No more beyond that. I guess that's why they would rather not get bogged down by actual policy commitments on the economy, NHS, income tax and VAT, etc etc.

 

It's the modern way to conduct an election campaign. Avoid policies, promises and positivity. Concentrate on portraying everyone else as incapable. If things get dicey... dust off the spectre of a coalition of doom involving the SNP and scare the living daylights out of everyone.

[Boris]

I've not seen data either but I would be surprised if its significant. But it's more a matter of principle.

 

The rape clause in particular if enacted would probably lose the Govt an insignificant sum so I bet they wish they hadn't bothered.

 

The point is that it's now dawning on people that it's the cap that's the problem but they continue to campaign only against the Clause.

 

And some people still think it's child benefit that are being capped. That's incorrect also.

 

Agree with you.

 

The latest policy stuff up being exposed. I wonder if protests about this one will reach fever pitch.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/experts-say-scottish-government-s-property-tax-is-flawed-1-4429291

 

Interesting one.  Does seem to be rather half-cocked.

 

Unfortunately, you're probably correct on both counts. I've never seen why changes to policy are viewed as 'embarrassing climb downs' and so on. Acknowledging that an error has been made and amending a policy should be encouraged.

 

Embarrassing because they ever saw the light of day in the first place?  Agree that acknowledging an error and amending should be encouraged.  I suppose we expect our politicians to get it right in the first place?

 

It would be nice if Nicola would take your advice rather than plough on regardless with a grievance for Indy 2.

 

Which policy needs amending?  Which policy "plough(s) on" grievance?

[redm]

 

 

I absolutely 100% agree with the two child cap.

 

Living on welfare for many has been clear lifestyle choice for far to long.

 

It's wrong. Very wrong. It's rightly being tackled.

 

I'm no Tory but I can see why this is being done. I don't treat my Politics like Sport. I'm able to see good and bad in all parties. No blinkers here.

 

Frightening how many people on here do treat their politics like a football team. It makes us all a little more stupid.

 

What about the huge numbers of people who don't choose that lifestyle? The people who have a change in circumstances though no fault of their own and find themselves in need of extra support? People who have accidental pregnancies or don't want to have an abortion? The idea that all of the people affected by this cap will just be scroungers who can't afford to feed their kids is way off the mark. It's going to affect all sorts of people, but mostly it's going to affect the children themselves. This isn't always going to act as a deterrent, so what about the children left living in poverty? Regardless of what you think of the parents or their decision-making, the children don't deserve this.

 

Re: the number of people who will fill out the rape clause... even one person having to fill that shit out is too many. Most people who could fill it out probably won't. People in need of support who can't bring themselves to disclose personal information or to enter a process which may well have an impact or which might stigmatise their children for the rest of their lives. What a choice to put before someone in that position. It's barbaric.

 

Also, I'd normally agree with you on the point about treating political preferences like tribalism or football but I think the interesting thing about this particular debate is that it hasn't really happened. Cross-party support with only one exception. Labour supporters bigging up Sturgeon's stance, SNP voters expressing admiration for Dugdale, Rennie, Harvie, everyone singing from the same hymn sheet. And out on a limb you have Davidson & co doing their best to avoid talking about it at all. Ref: their point blank refusal to take even one intervention in parliament yesterday. 

[Pans Jambo]

There's PLENTY money sloshing around so the vulnerable can get the help they need. Whether that be the old and infirm, the disabled, the unemployed (who want to work), the long term ill, children, low paid etc etc etc.

 

I thought the UK was the 5th or 6th richest country on the face of the earth???

 

All we need to do as a society is stop wasting money on vanity projects, WMD's, Foreign wars & actually collect the correct amount of tax that multinational corporations should be paying and hey-presto, we are rolling in it!

 

No more sanctions, no more pensioners choosing to either heat or eat, no more food banks, no more austerity etc etc.

 

WHY NOT?

[Boris]

There's PLENTY money sloshing around so the vulnerable can get the help they need. Whether that be the old and infirm, the disabled, the unemployed (who want to work), the long term ill, children, low paid etc etc etc.

 

I thought the UK was the 5th or 6th richest country on the face of the earth???

 

All we need to do as a society is stop wasting money on vanity projects, WMD's, Foreign wars & actually collect the correct amount of tax that multinational corporations should be paying and hey-presto, we are rolling in it!

 

No more sanctions, no more pensioners choosing to either heat or eat, no more food banks, no more austerity etc etc.

 

WHY NOT?

 

[Bindy Badgy]

Getting businesses to pay their fair share is always a tough one as they have very good accountants and lawyers whose sole job is to find the most tax efficient way of running their business. If it was easy it would have been sorted decades ago.

 

I do agree with the general point being made.

[redm]

There's PLENTY money sloshing around so the vulnerable can get the help they need. Whether that be the old and infirm, the disabled, the unemployed (who want to work), the long term ill, children, low paid etc etc etc.

 

I thought the UK was the 5th or 6th richest country on the face of the earth???

 

All we need to do as a society is stop wasting money on vanity projects, WMD's, Foreign wars & actually collect the correct amount of tax that multinational corporations should be paying and hey-presto, we are rolling in it!

 

No more sanctions, no more pensioners choosing to either heat or eat, no more food banks, no more austerity etc etc.

 

WHY NOT?

 

Sounds a plan to me.

 

Would be nice if we could prioritise actual human beings all the time, rather than only when faced with some sort of debate about how it's wrong to share resources with immigrants or to send aid to other countries. The people yelling about sending cash as foreign aid and insisting we sort out our own problems first are often the same ones who take issue with welfare and benefits.

 

The UK is not poor. If we're struggling to look after people who need it - the most vulnerable people in society - you have to ask yourself where the money is going.

[brunstanejambo]

A little bit of perspective before I make my main point ?

 

I?m approaching my 50^th year on this planet, from a ?blue-collar? working class background, grew up on a council estate in a small town in the north, went to university to study engineering, and now have a pretty much middle-class life I guess.

At school, I was politically ignorant ? sheltered from politics and the economy by my hard working parents I guess.

At university I aligned myself with Labour as I started to see the effects of political decisions made by the Conservative government of the day.

After graduating, I stayed aligned to Labour for pretty much the next 20 years.

However, in 2010 I changed to voting Conservative ? as I had become disillusioned with a few things that I expected the Labour government to have been running better by then.

 

Throughout my years, I?ve pretty much been driven politically by the headline news ? and how I see these political headlines affecting things that I have views on such as Health, Education, Social Security, Transport, Business etc.

 

Back in 2015 though, having been politically invigorated by the 2014 independence referendum (I voted No in case you?re wondering) I decided to take a decent look at the manifestos of the main parties to see what they all stood for.

To my surprise (and disappointment I might add) I found that they were all pretty much the same in many key areas.

 

This week I decided to do the same for the upcoming General Election.

Unfortunately, none of the party?s seem to have published their GE manifestos yet ? as all that I could find were the Local Election ones.

Not to be put off, I decided to do a bit of comparison between these.

 

So, here?s my main point ?

Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Education:

SNP ? ?more powers directly to schools?, ?30hrs per week of childcare by 2020?, ?free lunch for 2,3,&4 yr olds?, ?P1-P3 free meals?.

Labour ? ?support local education authorities?, ?investing in affordable childcare?

Conservative ? ?more powers to head teachers?, ?provide suitable childcare facilities?

 

Housing:

SNP ? ?35000 new social houses by 2021?

Labour ? ?45,000 new homes for rent by councils?, ?regulate private rents?

Conservative ? ?ensure that adequate levels of housing are available?

 

Business:

SNP ? ?take 100,000 small & medium businesses out of business rates?

Labour ? sadly didn?t seem to make any commitments to anything?

Conservative ? ?competitive rates for local businesses?

 

Finance:

SNP ? ?Cap council tax rise to 3% per year?, ?secure a share of income tax for councils?

Labour ? ?introduce a fairer system of council tax?, ?councils to charge a Tourist Tax?, ?councils to tax  vacant, economically inactive land?

Conservative ? ?keep council tax as low as is possible?

 

Health & Social Care:

SNP ? ?invest in social care?

Labour ? ?invest in social care?, ?introduce a Warm Home act?, ?increase Child Benefit?

Conservative ? ?support the growing need for adults and childrens social care?

 

Transport:

SNP ? ?support bus services?, ?invest in pavements & roads?

Labour ? ?municipal ownership of buses as happens in Edinburgh?, ?nationalise Scotrail?, ?address the issue of potholes and surface damage on our roads?

Conservative ? ?improve bus network?, ?more capacity on trains?, ?improve roads and railways?

 

So, again I?ll ask ? Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Or are all politicians only interested in saying the things that they believe we want to hear in an effort to secure power?

[Boris]

 

 

So, again I?ll ask ? Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Or are all politicians only interested in saying the things that they believe we want to hear in an effort to secure power?

 

First part, if they are all saying the same, then I guess it boils down to who do you think is most likely to deliver.

 

Your last point, mostly, yes!  

[reaths17]

A little bit of perspective before I make my main point ?

 

I?m approaching my 50^th year on this planet, from a ?blue-collar? working class background, grew up on a council estate in a small town in the north, went to university to study engineering, and now have a pretty much middle-class life I guess.

At school, I was politically ignorant ? sheltered from politics and the economy by my hard working parents I guess.

At university I aligned myself with Labour as I started to see the effects of political decisions made by the Conservative government of the day.

After graduating, I stayed aligned to Labour for pretty much the next 20 years.

However, in 2010 I changed to voting Conservative ? as I had become disillusioned with a few things that I expected the Labour government to have been running better by then.

 

Throughout my years, I?ve pretty much been driven politically by the headline news ? and how I see these political headlines affecting things that I have views on such as Health, Education, Social Security, Transport, Business etc.

 

Back in 2015 though, having been politically invigorated by the 2014 independence referendum (I voted No in case you?re wondering) I decided to take a decent look at the manifestos of the main parties to see what they all stood for.

To my surprise (and disappointment I might add) I found that they were all pretty much the same in many key areas.

 

This week I decided to do the same for the upcoming General Election.

Unfortunately, none of the party?s seem to have published their GE manifestos yet ? as all that I could find were the Local Election ones.

Not to be put off, I decided to do a bit of comparison between these.

 

So, here?s my main point ?

Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Education:

SNP ? ?more powers directly to schools?, ?30hrs per week of childcare by 2020?, ?free lunch for 2,3,&4 yr olds?, ?P1-P3 free meals?.

Labour ? ?support local education authorities?, ?investing in affordable childcare?

Conservative ? ?more powers to head teachers?, ?provide suitable childcare facilities?

 

Housing:

SNP ? ?35000 new social houses by 2021?

Labour ? ?45,000 new homes for rent by councils?, ?regulate private rents?

Conservative ? ?ensure that adequate levels of housing are available?

 

Business:

SNP ? ?take 100,000 small & medium businesses out of business rates?

Labour ? sadly didn?t seem to make any commitments to anything?

Conservative ? ?competitive rates for local businesses?

 

Finance:

SNP ? ?Cap council tax rise to 3% per year?, ?secure a share of income tax for councils?

Labour ? ?introduce a fairer system of council tax?, ?councils to charge a Tourist Tax?, ?councils to tax  vacant, economically inactive land?

Conservative ? ?keep council tax as low as is possible?

 

Health & Social Care:

SNP ? ?invest in social care?

Labour ? ?invest in social care?, ?introduce a Warm Home act?, ?increase Child Benefit?

Conservative ? ?support the growing need for adults and childrens social care?

 

Transport:

SNP ? ?support bus services?, ?invest in pavements & roads?

Labour ? ?municipal ownership of buses as happens in Edinburgh?, ?nationalise Scotrail?, ?address the issue of potholes and surface damage on our roads?

Conservative ? ?improve bus network?, ?more capacity on trains?, ?improve roads and railways?

 

So, again I?ll ask ? Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Or are all politicians only interested in saying the things that they believe we want to hear in an effort to secure power?

well if you look at their resume over the past 5 years, you'll find that the SNP are doing a worse job than the tories due to their incessant need to be crowned liberators of Scotland and labour have collapsed in on itself because of woeful leadership and identity loss. the rest havn't the depth to run anything.

 

that for a scot leaves you with the hated tories unfortunately.

 

my preference would be to send them all packing with a no vote and have them write a manifesto they can manage to complete along with a promise to jump off a high building if they dont. that should end the utter bullshit were getting fed these days.

[Taffin]

I absolutely 100% agree with the two child cap.

 

Living on welfare for many has been clear lifestyle choice for far to long.

 

It's wrong. Very wrong. It's rightly being tackled.

 

I'm no Tory but I can see why this is being done. I don't treat my Politics like Sport. I'm able to see good and bad in all parties. No blinkers here.

 

Frightening how many people on here do treat their politics like a football team. It makes us all a little more stupid.

 

Disagree, you should always stay true to your political values regardless of what spin may be put on it by others.

 

As for the two child cap and welfare living; surely if we take away people's freedom to support their family in a state of nature and force them to live in a society they never chose then we should be duty bound to provide for them?

[Taffin]

A little bit of perspective before I make my main point ?

 

I?m approaching my 50^th year on this planet, from a ?blue-collar? working class background, grew up on a council estate in a small town in the north, went to university to study engineering, and now have a pretty much middle-class life I guess.

At school, I was politically ignorant ? sheltered from politics and the economy by my hard working parents I guess.

At university I aligned myself with Labour as I started to see the effects of political decisions made by the Conservative government of the day.

After graduating, I stayed aligned to Labour for pretty much the next 20 years.

However, in 2010 I changed to voting Conservative ? as I had become disillusioned with a few things that I expected the Labour government to have been running better by then.

 

Throughout my years, I?ve pretty much been driven politically by the headline news ? and how I see these political headlines affecting things that I have views on such as Health, Education, Social Security, Transport, Business etc.

 

Back in 2015 though, having been politically invigorated by the 2014 independence referendum (I voted No in case you?re wondering) I decided to take a decent look at the manifestos of the main parties to see what they all stood for.

To my surprise (and disappointment I might add) I found that they were all pretty much the same in many key areas.

 

This week I decided to do the same for the upcoming General Election.

Unfortunately, none of the party?s seem to have published their GE manifestos yet ? as all that I could find were the Local Election ones.

Not to be put off, I decided to do a bit of comparison between these.

 

So, here?s my main point ?

Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Education:

SNP ? ?more powers directly to schools?, ?30hrs per week of childcare by 2020?, ?free lunch for 2,3,&4 yr olds?, ?P1-P3 free meals?.

Labour ? ?support local education authorities?, ?investing in affordable childcare?

Conservative ? ?more powers to head teachers?, ?provide suitable childcare facilities?

 

Housing:

SNP ? ?35000 new social houses by 2021?

Labour ? ?45,000 new homes for rent by councils?, ?regulate private rents?

Conservative ? ?ensure that adequate levels of housing are available?

 

Business:

SNP ? ?take 100,000 small & medium businesses out of business rates?

Labour ? sadly didn?t seem to make any commitments to anything?

Conservative ? ?competitive rates for local businesses?

 

Finance:

SNP ? ?Cap council tax rise to 3% per year?, ?secure a share of income tax for councils?

Labour ? ?introduce a fairer system of council tax?, ?councils to charge a Tourist Tax?, ?councils to tax  vacant, economically inactive land?

Conservative ? ?keep council tax as low as is possible?

 

Health & Social Care:

SNP ? ?invest in social care?

Labour ? ?invest in social care?, ?introduce a Warm Home act?, ?increase Child Benefit?

Conservative ? ?support the growing need for adults and childrens social care?

 

Transport:

SNP ? ?support bus services?, ?invest in pavements & roads?

Labour ? ?municipal ownership of buses as happens in Edinburgh?, ?nationalise Scotrail?, ?address the issue of potholes and surface damage on our roads?

Conservative ? ?improve bus network?, ?more capacity on trains?, ?improve roads and railways?

 

So, again I?ll ask ? Who can you believe when they are all so similar in a lot of key areas?

 

Or are all politicians only interested in saying the things that they believe we want to hear in an effort to secure power?

 

 

I don't see them as being all that similar. In many instances the Tories have stated something unquantifiable and open to interpretation (of which theirs is likely very different to mine). The other two have put numbers, dates and qualifiers to it so they can be held accountable by the electorate. 

 

If someone came to me with the wishy washy statements from the Tories you have given above I would ask they go away and add some detail so we can measure the success of the project and leave them minimal wriggle room for reneging. 

[Don Dan]

.

[brunstanejambo]

First part, if they are all saying the same, then I guess it boils down to who do you think is most likely to deliver.

 

 

And this is the ultimate dilemma that we face - we are essentially having to guess what a politician or political party's true agenda is.

 

It's easy to sit in our homes, or even on the opposition benches, and say what previous governments have done wrong - but it's much harder to identify what any of them have done right or will do right in the future.

 

In the areas where's they appear to have similar viewpoints according to their respective manifestos, you could argue that all parties have failed us to some extent over the past 30 years.

 

I must admit, I am really struggling with these upcoming elections to decide on who to pledge my support to.

 

And when all party's seem to be intent on reducing serious issues to political points scoring it just makes it even more difficult.

 

I'm actually at the point of thinking about it from a different perspective - rather than thinking who is most likely to deliver, I am thinking about who is least likely to deliver and then crossing them off of my list that way...

[Boris]

 

As for the two child cap and welfare living; surely if we take away people's freedom to support their family in a state of nature and force them to live in a society they never chose then we should be duty bound to provide for them?

 

Like it!

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Can hardly bring myself to watch Corbyn at PMQs.

 

"This week Maureen wrote to me, asking about (dribbles on for about a minute)..."

 

FFS mate, you're promoting yourself as a future prime minister.

[reaths17]

Disagree, you should always stay true to your political values regardless of what spin may be put on it by others.

 

As for the two child cap and welfare living; surely if we take away people's freedom to support their family in a state of nature and force them to live in a society they never chose then we should be duty bound to provide for them?

what society would be their choice ? they seem to want to not work, they want to be given handouts to support the multitude of children they can be bothered having. they want free health care, they want free protection, they want free housing for their family, that's what they have now.

 

they don't support their family, unless handouts/sponging from others is deemed support.

[Dawnrazor]

Can hardly bring myself to watch Corbyn at PMQs.

 

"This week Maureen wrote to me, asking about (dribbles on for about a minute)..."

 

FFS mate, you're promoting yourself as a future prime minister.

He has been pathetic from day one, this'll be his last PMQ's, Labour will be royally humped in the GE, the Labour party will be in meltdown, I really fear for them as I think a split will be the result, left/centre right factions. The UK need a robust opposition, they have none.

[redm]

what society would be their choice ? they seem to want to not work, they want to be given handouts to support the multitude of children they can be bothered having. they want free health care, they want free protection, they want free housing for their family, that's what they have now.

 

they don't support their family, unless handouts/sponging from others is deemed support.

 

That's one group of beneficiaries, but what about all of the other people? Those who find themselves in a bad place through no fault of their own, or those who have suffered some sort of life-changing event which means they now need more help than they ever expected? What about the people who work very hard but just earn really low wages? What about the good hardworking people who aren't actively choosing this life? Equally importantly, what about their children?

[Victorian]

It's back slapping all round in the government benches. Just hand the ****ing peerages out.

[reaths17]

That's one group of beneficiaries, but what about all of the other people? Those who find themselves in a bad place through no fault of their own, or those who have suffered some sort of life-changing event which means they now need more help than they ever expected? What about the people who work very hard but just earn really low wages? What about the good hardworking people who aren't actively choosing this life? Equally importantly, what about their children?

that is what the welfare system was invented for, you cant tell me that's what we have now. so when's the point when you say this has to stop/reform is needed, are you willing to wait until your the only one working to support every other person in the country.

 

the system has been getting abused for years, do you condone abuse ? something has to be done so it gets back to its original purpose and ideals before its totally screwed.