General Election 2019

Again, I don’t think that’s having the impact on the voters you think it is.

What does that last paragraph you just added mean? I can’t make sense of it I’m afraid.

they only announced the policy 12 hours ago. how do you know what effect it is having?

remain voters prefer the labour brexit policy to the LD’s. you love to see it
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Deltapoll-MoS191123.pdf

it means it is a good sign that the labour party are not just looking to rely on the people who voted for them in 2017. they are also looking to bring in new groups - including people who may have traditionally voted conservative.

I don’t think it’s a bribe to the WASPI women at all. It’s more about righting a wrong after the tories screwed them over.

It also says libdems prefer Johnson to Corbyn (47 to 32) on Brexit. There are lots of way to interpret this, but I'm going to take it as evidence of the "center" being just as partisan as the left and right. A "People's Vote" is only acceptable if we are the ones responsible for it.

Taking money from a cohort who have very little to give to a group that has a lot? It certainly sounds familiar, but not as a Labour policy.

Why is it going to be young people paying and not corporations and thos well off via CGT?

Taking money from a cohort who have very little to give to a group that has a lot?

Can you explain this? It’s a discrete set of payments over 5 years. Assuming it’s going to be paid out of general taxation why would it fall uniquely on the young any more than any other set of taxpayers?

why would it fall uniquely on the young any more than any other set of taxpayers?

Presumably because they are borrowing the money to fund it.

Generally, older people earn more and therefore pay more tax. I'm not clear how this thing of the "young" paying for this specific policy is going to work?

Also, what about all the NI contributions the women in question paid? Yeah, I get that NI isn't really "insurance", but even so...

Generally, older people earn more and therefore pay more tax.

Yes but they have this annoying habit* of reducing in numbers by dying or retiring, and when they do the later it's flipping' expensive. This is why shrinking populations terrify governments so much; there simply isn't enough new blood to pay for the promises made to the old.

I'm not clear how this thing of the "young" paying for this specific policy is going to work?

As above, they will borrow the money to fund it. As I understand it.

Also, what about all the NI contributions the women in question paid? Yeah, I get that NI isn't really "insurance", but even so...

Well, it was spent. To pay for the pensions of...

* other annoying habits they have: getting better at hiding their income, not earning significantly more money for many years.

Fair points.

However, I'm not convinced that the "taxing the poor young people to pay for the rich old people" narrative is valid.

To me, it's about giving a specific group of retired people what they were promised.

To me, it's about giving a specific group of retired people what they were promised.

Tell that to anyone with a lifetime Disability Living Allowance award.

Things change.

But it doesn't always have to be a race to the bottom?

I know this does rather fly in the face of recent history, though.

https://mobile.twitter.com/elashton/status/1198527645862047744

called it: jo swinson is away with the cuckoos - she is massively overplaying her hand here. suspect the more she goes on about "becoming PM", the more people are going to start tuning her out.

But it doesn't always have to be a race to the bottom?

It becomes an ideologically loaded question. Personally, I take the promises the state makes with a huge pinch of salt, and plan so that should they renege on them I can still carry on.

People have probably already seen this, but in case you haven't.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/bbc-caught-up-in-another-editing-scandal/24/11/

They also seem to have edited the actual answer to take the same words from later when there was no laughter. (Which sort of bellies the "cutting to save time" claim)

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulthomas_film/status/1198578714323431424

Wasn't there some ex BBC guy saying it was the corporation's"Duty" to make sure the PM looked good and people had faith in the government?

Peter Oborne claimed Tony Hall said it to him. (I think). Which I find quite believable. The BBC has denied it but Hall hasn't (as far as I know) responded.

His Twitter feed is a pretty good catalogue of Johnson lies and the presses failures in dealing with them.

https://mobile.twitter.com/obornetweets?lang=en

Wasn't there some ex BBC guy saying it was the corporation's"Duty" to make sure the PM looked good and people had faith in the government?

More like this - *"Senior BBC executives [...] tell me they personally think it's wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics.*

Thats expose lies rather that call people liars -
*"What we don't do is label people as liars - that's a judgment for audiences to make about an individual's motives."*

Is a green vote, a wasted vote?

Depends on where. It could be worse than a wasted vote in some places - could be as good as a vote for the Tories (i.e., in Stroud).

In a closely contested seat maybe, but if like me you are voting in a safe seat (15k Tory majority) then why not, I'll be voting for them. Means they get their deposit back and keeps pushing the green agenda. Plus you get to vote for who you want to vote for.

Same situation here (14.5k majority).