The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Voting open today from 7am - 10pm

[Knoyleo]

But (I think he's left RT anyway)

Was he ever "with" RT? I know their logo was on his first big video, but it's not like he was a correspondent there. Pie's always been a bit of character comedy. He even had a show at the Edinburgh festival last year.

[Moggy]

But (I think he's left RT anyway)

Was he ever "with" RT? I know their logo was on his first big video, but it's not like he was a correspondent there. Pie's always been a bit of character comedy. He even had a show at the Edinburgh festival last year.

He was with them but has severed links now.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/201 ... rgh-fringe

[satriales]

More lies from the Daily Mail as they have gone with the headline "CORBYN'S KICK IN TEETH FOR IRA VICTIMS" and then accuses Corbyn of refusing to condemn the IRA. This is based purely on this Sky interview where he literally says "I condemn all those that do bombing including the IRA".

[Alvin Flummux]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

[Qikz]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

Somehow Ofcom doesn't stop people blatantly making gooseberry fool up.

[Knoyleo]

But (I think he's left RT anyway)

Was he ever "with" RT? I know their logo was on his first big video, but it's not like he was a correspondent there. Pie's always been a bit of character comedy. He even had a show at the Edinburgh festival last year.

He was with them but has severed links now.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/201 ... rgh-fringe

Didn't know that, thanks.

[Benzin]

Daily Mail starting to panic about the potential lack of Labour being killed off then...

[Errkal]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

There isn't one.

TV is subject ot ofcom and must be balanced and give time to each party relative to public opinions etc.

Newspapers have no such rule, there was going to be one but the Tories have said the plans will be scrapped in their manifesto.

[BID0]

More lies from the Daily Mail as they have gone with the headline "CORBYN'S KICK IN TEETH FOR IRA VICTIMS" and then accuses Corbyn of refusing to condemn the IRA. This is based purely on this Sky interview where he literally says "I condemn all those that do bombing including the IRA".

That interview is terrible I watched it on twitter yesterday. There appeared to be several twitter accounts with negative following/follower ratios all over it that didn't make a convincing argument, they just gooseberry fool posted and never replied.

[BID0]

How exactly do they keep getting away with lying so openly? Where is the watchdog?

There isn't one.

TV is subject ot ofcom and must be balanced and give time to each party relative to public opinions etc.

Newspapers have no such rule, there was going to be one but the Tories have said the plans will be scrapped in their manifesto.

twitter.com/hrtbps/status/865528902289981442

to be fair, it's probably just coincidence.

[Hexx]

The amount of vitriol over the laughably named "dementia tax" is staggering.

It's the IHT whinge fest x10.

People who would consider themselves on "the left" aghast that those (i.e. "hard working family member who wants to leave it to me") with substantial assets should contribute to society's costs.

[Moggy]

More lies from the Daily Mail as they have gone with the headline "CORBYN'S KICK IN TEETH FOR IRA VICTIMS" and then accuses Corbyn of refusing to condemn the IRA. This is based purely on this Sky interview where he literally says "I condemn all those that do bombing including the IRA".

If you vote for Corbyn then you'll end up with a member of the IRA as deputy first minister of N Ireland.

Oh wait....

[captain red dog]

Well these tuition fee plans from Labour are really good. You have to hand it to Corbyn, he has gone aggressive with the manifesto and it generally seems well recieved. It's certainly a manifesto that would have my backing despite the considerations over Brexit.

The Tory manifesto in comparison looks like a working class nightmare in my opinion.

[Grumpy David]

The amount of vitriol over the laughably named "dementia tax" is staggering.

It's the IHT whinge fest x10.

People who would consider themselves on "the left" aghast that those (i.e. "hard working family member who wants to leave it to me") with substantial assets should contribute to society's costs.

Isn't it effectively a 100% tax rate on assets over £100,000?

Whilst I expect to have no inheritance whatsoever from parents, I am generally opposed to the concept of a harsh inheritance tax. This seems very harsh on those with long term health care needs.

[Moggy]

Let's have another 5 page discussion on IHT.

[Hexx]

The amount of vitriol over the laughably named "dementia tax" is staggering.

It's the IHT whinge fest x10.

People who would consider themselves on "the left" aghast that those (i.e. "hard working family member who wants to leave it to me") with substantial assets should contribute to society's costs.

Isn't it effectively a 100% tax rate on assets over £100,000?

Whilst I expect to have no inheritance whatsoever from parents, I am generally opposed to the concept of a harsh inheritance tax. This seems very harsh on those with long term health care needs.

Potentially - yeah.

It's a bad idea in that it mixes the idea of pooled social contributions.

E.g. You and I both have £300k assets.

You need care and have to pay £200k before the state helps.

I don't need care an need to pay nothing.

Only you pay for your costs at the start (and vice versa)

In a "pooled" situation we might both contribute even though neither of us might need it, or both will.

It's simply "From each, according to need [and ability to pay]" which is a huge change from how most social security costs are funded.

If people want to object on that basis I'd agree - I'm just frustrated with the "hand's off my money" style response from lots of people. How dare people with near above average assets (IIRC it's about £130k, but that's not adjusted for ages) be expected to pay more! Shocking!

Edit - it's interesting to note the change the plan suggests.

Effectively the policy was to be a cap on everyone "You wont pay more than £70k towards care costs", now it's a floor "Your assets wont fall below £100k".

The former massively benefited high value individuals more, and could wipe out smaller asset holders.

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

[satriales]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

[captain red dog]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

Yep and it wouldn't be so controversial if the care was actually any good, but it is a national scandal at present that nobody genuinely wants to tackle.

[Hexx]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

[BID0]

The new idea protects smaller asset holders and means greater impact on high value individuals.

The rich won't be affected as they won't rely on the state for care. It's those in the middle that will be in this lottery.

So the rich won't pay for care, because they're already paying for care?

It sounds silly but the "high" earners (and people who get private healthcare from work) pay for private healthcare already and benefit from not paying for the NHS in this scenario - so yes they pay for it (private) but won't pay for it (a second time/NHS).