Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: bobjimwilly on May 11, 2017, 10:58:05 am
-
so to summarise, Labour will:
Only increase taxes for those earning > £80k a year
Increase taxes for large corporations
Outlaw zero hours contracts
Invest £8 billion in to the NHS
Ring-fence mental health budgets
Scrap university tuition fees
Give fair notice when increase the pension age
Build 100,000 new houses a year
Bring back rail and post office to public ownership
Hire 10,000 more police officers
Scrap bedroom tax
The Tories will:
Reduce taxes for everyone, but more so the super-rich
Increase inheritance allowance
Bring back fox-hunting
Carry-on privatising NHS services
Carry-on trying to reduce the deficit (which they've increase in the last 7 years under austerity)
Cap welfare
"Deliver the best schools"
is that about right? tough choice...
:facepalm:
-
"Yeah, but Corbyn"
-
Anyone recall when thatcher said ' a no vote is a vote for them ' or she said something on those lines.
How would a ' no vote ' be deemed today?
What I can't understand with Labour is that if they fail to get in at No10 corbyn has stated that he would not step down and carry leading the party.
Normally if you fail in your job you are sacked ,laid off or moved from your position ,but not in corbyns case .
As for the conservatives ,well they seem to be keeping al their shit in house and look far more presentable and in far better shape.
It's not as if they have to try very hard is it.
Ukip > are finished waste of a vote.
Liberals > never been a option
Greens > see above.
-
so to summarise, Labour will:
Only increase taxes for those earning > £80k a year
Increase taxes for large corporations
Outlaw zero hours contracts
Invest £8 billion in to the NHS
Ring-fence mental health budgets
Scrap university tuition fees
Give fair notice when increase the pension age
Build 100,000 new houses a year
Bring back rail and post office to public ownership
Hire 10,000 more police officers
Scrap bedroom tax
The Tories will:
Reduce taxes for everyone, but more so the super-rich
Increase inheritance allowance
Bring back fox-hunting
Carry-on privatising NHS services
Carry-on trying to reduce the deficit (which they've increase in the last 7 years under austerity)
Cap welfare
"Deliver the best schools"
is that about right? tough choice...
:facepalm:
Labour will put our economy on a par with the 3rd world , where most are run by left wing dictators who think making money and having aspirations for your self and your family and should paid for by very high taxing forcing you to the point where think of leaving the country of your birth .
Companies will never set up base in the U.K. If the tax system will not allow them to earn , employ and expand .
Labour DO NOT want to be in government as they feel more effective as an opposition party throwing insults at those who need to make hard decisions , for Labour has not got the personal on the front line to run a government and I am a card carrying member of Labour . Corbyn OUT!!!
-
so to summarise, Labour will:
Only increase taxes for those earning > £80k a year
Increase taxes for large corporations
Outlaw zero hours contracts
Invest £8 billion in to the NHS
Ring-fence mental health budgets
Scrap university tuition fees
Give fair notice when increase the pension age
Build 100,000 new houses a year
Bring back rail and post office to public ownership
Hire 10,000 more police officers
Scrap bedroom tax
The Tories will:
Reduce taxes for everyone, but more so the super-rich
Increase inheritance allowance
Bring back fox-hunting
Carry-on privatising NHS services
Carry-on trying to reduce the deficit (which they've increase in the last 7 years under austerity)
Cap welfare
"Deliver the best schools"
is that about right? tough choice...
:facepalm:
Those Labour ones,you do realise how many of them would bite the dust under ever closer union,seems Labour are celebrating Brexit whilst saying they wouldn't commit to it if elected... Wigley dots...100.000 houses eh,how many more would be needed under unlimited mass migration that Worzel Gummidge favours?
-
"Indecipherable Yargo b*llocks"
-
There's a few more indecipherable racist bigots on BBC1 tonight after 6.30,wonder how much praise the brilliant local MP will get?
-
I bet my last $$$ that the lady Susan abbot above was brought up to vote Labour .
But going by her post it's obvious that she is not happy with what corbyn has brought to the Labour Party,if Susan votes for Labour in June it will be a half hearted vote .susan might not vote at all .
My point is there must be many Susan abbots out there in the same pickle as Labour seem to be giving normall Labour voters of past a problem on to vote for them or not.
If Susan can see Labour see the Labour party's issues ,I can see them with many more ,why have the Labour themselves not seen it and done something about it.
The Labour Party needs to wash its hands of its idiots like corbyn Diane abbot and it's far too left way of thinking.
They don't seem to be the party that stands for the working class anymore ,just a party that attracts far left wing nut jobs into its ranks .
Did anyone watch the Labour Party loon who introduced corbyn to the Labour public in Manchester the other day .
Her speech went along the lines ' let me welcome yo u Jeremy corbyn who gives a TOSS ,let's get behind him and Labour as we gives a TOSS but unlike the conservatives who don't give a TOSS.'
TOSS > how can you have a party in at No10 that and take the serious when they use the word TOSS ago help get its point across and pull in the votes.
Fcuk you might as well vote for likes of me
-
I keep hearing this "who's gonna pay for it?" b*llocks. It says in the manifesto, they'll borrow £250bn over 10 years and invest in industry and services. Bear in mind the Tories have borrowed an extra £700bn over 7 years, and have used it to prop up the banks and give corporate welfare to their rich pals, while branding the unemployed and disabled scroungers...
Labour will put our economy on a par with the 3rd world , where most are run by left wing dictators who think making money and having aspirations for your self and your family and should paid for by very high taxing forcing you to the point where think of leaving the country of your birth .
Companies will never set up base in the U.K. If the tax system will not allow them to earn , employ and expand .
Course they will, inward investment in other European countries with similar taxation structures is still high. There will undoubtedly be an impact, which will be offset by economic growth.
It's hardly "left-wing dictator" stuff.
-
Corbyn can make all the promises he wants and be as bold as he wants because he isnt going to win is he.
He therefore wont ever be in a position where he has to deliver on them.
-
They all kept on saying that brexit would never be voted in > the brexit vote won.
They was all saying that Clinton would win > trump won
So you never know these days and the book is still open from me as to who will win despite what seems to me Labour shooting them sens in the foot.
Still 4 weeks untill voting day and I suspect that there must be some skeletons hanging about the conservative cupboards waiting to come out.
-
Mrs May currently at 1/40 to win.
-
Read the OP again.
That's what you shold be voting on. Not personality,charisma, left or right or what the Tory press say.
If you're minted and earning 100 grand a year vote for the strong and stable Teresa. She'll look after you.
If not and you care about the less well off the NHS social care, fuel bills, affordable housing, public ownership of rail services and FAIRNESS then it's a no brainer.
-
Like i said, no chance of him ever being able to deliver any of those things.
He is in a great position of being able to promise whatever he wants and never having to prove it.
-
Like i said, no chance of him ever being able to deliver any of those things.
He is in a great position of being able to promise whatever he wants and never having to prove it.
That's all he can do. It's up to you if he is going to have the opportunity to do them or not.
-
Read the OP again.
That's what you shold be voting on. Not personality,charisma, left or right or what the Tory press say.
If you're minted and earning 100 grand a year vote for the strong and stable Teresa. She'll look after you.
If not and you care about the less well off the NHS social care, fuel bills, affordable housing, public ownership of rail services and FAIRNESS then it's a no brainer.
The fact that I don't live in U.K. Anymore I will not cast a vote as I belive that I should not have a say in the way the country is run as I don't live there anymore.
But if I was back in the U.K. Every pulse in my body is telling me not to vote Labour as this is one time you should judge a book by its cover.
I take on board that torys will allways look after the higher end of the table ,but I can't think of one Tory member that rubs me up the wrong way unlike the Labour party mixed bag of odds and ends.
-
Like i said, no chance of him ever being able to deliver any of those things.
He is in a great position of being able to promise whatever he wants and never having to prove it.
That's all he can do. It's up to you if he is going to have the opportunity to do them or not.
.....and a few million others who wont vote for him.
-
Interesting to see last night that since the Tories decreased corporation tax they make far more money from it.
Corbyn is going to make Hospital car parking free by raising taxes on private health Insurance! Well as a person who pays £120 a month into such a scheme I will be pulling out of it and becoming another burden for the beleaguered NHS to worry about.
-
Yes the revenue from Corporation tax has gone up. Why is that do you think?
Could it be that under the Tory Government big companies are making even more profits for their shareholders with workers on zero hour contracts maybe.
-
Interesting the spin people put on things isn't it. The money collected from Corporation Tax has gone up because the tax is lower - not because HMRC have been clamping down on firms avoiding it.
Oh and the money raised in 2015-16 was 25% lower than 2014-15 - so actually it has gone down. As they have found other ways of avoiding it.
http://economia.icaew.com/en/news/january-2017/hmrc-nets-extra-2-6bn-in-corporate-tax-probes-pinsent-masons
-
I like the Labour manifesto, those industries should never have been nationalised in the first place. I value the NHS, the tories seem hell bent on destroying it. I will vote for the policies rather than the person
-
The NHS allways seems pop up at the front on the two main party's policy's when it comes to the general election.
Whoever is in the other party can allways do better etc etc .
The NHS says it had no money and that it's on its arse but no government had yet to solve the money that the NHS keeps on chucking away via the health tourism mess.
I have yet to see one single person that's employed by the NHS stand up and make a point over this .
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
-
Labour will plant a money tree? It doesn't add up to me. Create more jobs but tax those who create them.
You're a company you can pay a whack of tax here but be outside the eu or pay much less in Ireland with eu access - madness.
As for taxing those at 80k much more, 80k is not in some cases a huge amount of money. Justify that to a family in London with one working person. I tend to think the tax level may be too low but so is 80k.
On nationalisation, was it really any good before privatisation, really?
The key point for me is it just doesn't add up, the costings on the face of it seem to contradict a little. Devil in the detail of course.
-
I have yet to see one single person that's employed by the NHS stand up and make a point over this .
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
You haven't seen anyone make a point out of it probably because it's not true, and overall foreigners pay far more in tax and contribute far more to the NHS than they take out. And that's not even counting the foreigners who work in the NHS and keep the thing running.
Sorry, I keep forgetting you don't do facts.
-
Interesting to see last night that since the Tories decreased corporation tax they make far more money from it.
Corbyn is going to make Hospital car parking free by raising taxes on private health Insurance! Well as a person who pays £120 a month into such a scheme I will be pulling out of it and becoming another burden for the beleaguered NHS to worry about.
Likewise I would pull out also I suspect. Love to see also how labour plan to buy out the 20-30 year contracts put in place at hospitals by, erm labour.
-
Interesting to see last night that since the Tories decreased corporation tax they make far more money from it.
Corbyn is going to make Hospital car parking free by raising taxes on private health Insurance! Well as a person who pays £120 a month into such a scheme I will be pulling out of it and becoming another burden for the beleaguered NHS to worry about.
Likewise I would pull out also I suspect. Love to see also how labour plan to buy out the 20-30 year contracts put in place at hospitals by, erm labour.
Just the Labour ones? What about all those that Gideon set up but called a different name to fool people?
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Glyn is there a issue with health tourism within the NHS service in the U.K. Yes/no > yes there is .
Ok if all moneys was collected the NHS will still be in a mess ,but at least it's a start.
I also bet my last $$$$ that untold amounts of NHS stock all through the range is been chucked out un used or walking out the front/ back doors due to light fingered staff.
The fact that whoever is putting the orders in for X amount of items abcdef is not paying for it with their own money ,and a lot of stock gets set back to the stores as they have no room for it on the wards > inturn there is no room for it in the stock room so it's thrown away into the skips out back.
There will be no ' throw out controll sheet ' what so ever and months down the line items abcdef will be placed on order again.
Love to see a report of what the NHS is throwing away
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Glyn is there a issue with health tourism within the NHS service in the U.K. Yes/no > yes there is .
Ok if all moneys was collected the NHS will still be in a mess ,but at least it's a start.
I also bet my last $$$$ that untold amounts of NHS stock all through the range is been chucked out un used or walking out the front/ back doors due to light fingered staff.
The fact that whoever is putting the orders in for X amount of items abcdef is not paying for it with their own money ,and a lot of stock gets set back to the stores as they have no room for it on the wards > inturn there is no room for it in the stock room so it's thrown away into the skips out back.
There will be no ' throw out controll sheet ' what so ever and months down the line items abcdef will be placed on order again.
Love to see a report of what the NHS is throwing away
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
Answer the question. Is the £500K-loss anecdote one you haven't bothered to check is true?
-
Labour will plant a money tree? It doesn't add up to me. Create more jobs but tax those who create them.
You're a company you can pay a whack of tax here but be outside the eu or pay much less in Ireland with eu access - madness.
As for taxing those at 80k much more, 80k is not in some cases a huge amount of money. Justify that to a family in London with one working person. I tend to think the tax level may be too low but so is 80k.
On nationalisation, was it really any good before privatisation, really?
The key point for me is it just doesn't add up, the costings on the face of it seem to contradict a little. Devil in the detail of course.
Some interesting points there BFYP.
On the costings contradicting a little, as they haven't announced the costings then that does seem a strange thing to say.
Were the railways run better before they were privatised. The people who use them certainly believe they were.
https://weownit.org.uk/blog/rail-privatisation-success-or-failure
The £80k tax threshold will unfairly hit familes in London - thus you would expect it to be especially unpopular in London. London is the only part of the country where Labour is leading in the polls - thus it appears that this policy is particuarly popular in London.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-london-dominant-party-win-conservativesfive-point-lead-lose-four-seats-ukip-a7729446.html
-
It was reported in a newspaper some time back Glynn I seem to recall .bug saying that my memory has its downfalls .but let's not take just one case on this health tourism issue as the totall cost to the NHS will be a lot more than the £500,000 I plucked out.
-
I will chuck my arrows at the board and guess that health tourism will cost the NHS 3% or a tad more of its yearly budget .
-
After a quick Google search it would appear that the cost of 'health tourism' to the NHS is potentially up to £300m per year. 0.3% of their budget.
Sounds like a non-issue to me.
-
After a quick Google search it would appear that the cost of 'health tourism' to the NHS is potentially up to £300m per year. 0.3% of their budget.
Sounds like a non-issue to me.
Dead easy to find if you really want to know, it seems. Not everyone is as bothered as they make out though.
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
Her name was Priscilla,only recall that because of Elvis tbh.she was from Nigeria and she gave birth to 4 kids at charlottes hospital in London > this cost the NHS £500,000 and she fcuked off back to Nigeria without paying a penny.
Ok that amount of money is fcuk all when you look at the yearly budget of the NHS but that is no way
to run a corner shop never mind a state institution
-
You're right. I'd be livid if people came into my corner shop just to give birth then emigrated. :silly:
-
You have a point there redj but you can bet that the corner shop owner would do a far better job of chasing up any money owed .
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
Her name was Priscilla,only recall that because of Elvis tbh.she was from Nigeria and she gave birth to 4 kids at charlottes hospital in London > this cost the NHS £500,000 and she fcuked off back to Nigeria without paying a penny.
Ok that amount of money is fcuk all when you look at the yearly budget of the NHS but that is no way
to run a corner shop never mind a state institution
I've used Google and found it. She wasn't an 'NHS tourist' as you call it. She wasn't even coming to this country. And it wasn't £500K.
-
Did a bit of Googling because f**k it I'm bored. Predictably there's a Daily Mail article about it full of half-truths and racist sensationalism that Oslo lapped up without bothering to read the story beyond the bits that confirmed his shithouse racist prejudices.
Turns out there was a woman called Priscilla who was pregnant with quadruplets, travelling to America to give birth with her family. She was turned away and sent back to Nigeria via Heathrow. She went into labour 3 months premature on the flight and had to be rushed to hospital.
Two of those quadruplets died. The other two required intensive care, as did the mother. It didn't matter where they were from, the NHS didn't turn them away, because once you start down that road it leads to dark places. They got on with it and saved two babies' lives.
Kitsons like Oslo would have you believe that saving babies' lives makes the NHS weak and wasteful if those babies happen to be born to a mam from somewhere they don't like. Me, I think that shows you why the NHS is the greatest British institution there is.
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
Her name was Priscilla,only recall that because of Elvis tbh.she was from Nigeria and she gave birth to 4 kids at charlottes hospital in London > this cost the NHS £500,000 and she fcuked off back to Nigeria without paying a penny.
Ok that amount of money is fcuk all when you look at the yearly budget of the NHS but that is no way
to run a corner shop never mind a state institution
I've used Google and found it. She wasn't an 'NHS tourist' as you call it. She wasn't even coming to this country. And it wasn't £500K.
You only google what you want to read Glynn fella ,I know what I read sometime back and Iam 100%
Certian that Iam on the correct road.
she was turned back from USA as she wanted to give birth in that country > could not provide documentation that she was American and could not provide any money to pay for the births > that's her down as a health tourist no matter what way you look at it.
She then got onto a plane to heathrow London while on the plane she went into contractions or whatever you call them > ended up in a chelsea hospital and gave birth to 4 kids and two died > running up a £500,000 unpaid bill.
The yanks did not let her in because she did not have the funds to pay or could not provide paper work that she was American > what part of this does not spell out health tourism
-
Did a bit of Googling because f**k it I'm bored. Predictably there's a Daily Mail article about it full of half-truths and racist sensationalism that Oslo lapped up without bothering to read the story beyond the bits that confirmed his shithouse racist prejudices.
Turns out there was a woman called Priscilla who was pregnant with quadruplets, travelling to America to give birth with her family. She was turned away and sent back to Nigeria via Heathrow. She went into labour 3 months premature on the flight and had to be rushed to hospital.
Two of those quadruplets died. The other two required intensive care, as did the mother. It didn't matter where they were from, the NHS didn't turn them away, because once you start down that road it leads to dark places. They got on with it and saved two babies' lives.
Kitsons like Oslo would have you believe that saving babies' lives makes the NHS weak and wasteful if those babies happen to be born to a mam from somewhere they don't like. Me, I think that shows you why the NHS is the greatest British institution there is.
in the article in a metro newspaper and the fact that she is black don't make me a racist you prick ,I only put up what I recall reading,the words £500,000 ,health tourist,presicila,Nigeria,4 births, stopped in America,Chelsea hostpital ,heathrow flight stick in my mind.
-
Some lady from another country landed in the U.K. Whilst she had a bun in her oven,she dropped the said bun which turned out to be 4 buns that popped out to the exsprncd of £500,000 to the HNS,give or take a £ or two.
She then went back to her native country ( somewhere in Africa) without paying a bean.
The NHS cant help it self
Is this another of your can't-be-arsed-to-check anecdotes?
Her name was Priscilla,only recall that because of Elvis tbh.she was from Nigeria and she gave birth to 4 kids at charlottes hospital in London > this cost the NHS £500,000 and she fcuked off back to Nigeria without paying a penny.
Ok that amount of money is fcuk all when you look at the yearly budget of the NHS but that is no way
to run a corner shop never mind a state institution
I've used Google and found it. She wasn't an 'NHS tourist' as you call it. She wasn't even coming to this country. And it wasn't £500K.
You only google what you want to read Glynn fella ,I know what I read sometime back and Iam 100%
Certian that Iam on the correct road.
she was turned back from USA as she wanted to give birth in that country > could not provide documentation that she was American and could not provide any money to pay for the births > that's her down as a health tourist no matter what way you look at it.
She then got onto a plane to heathrow London while on the plane she went into contractions or whatever you call them > ended up in a chelsea hospital and gave birth to 4 kids and two died > running up a £500,000 unpaid bill.
The yanks did not let her in because she did not have the funds to pay or could not provide paper work that she was American > what part of this does not spell out health tourism
The part you got wrong of course - she was not flying to this country, she was on her way home to NIGERIA, not coming to this country to scam the NHS at all. Nor would she have made any of the decisions about which hospital she was admitted to either, even if she had been in any state to do so.
Unless of course you REALLY want us to believe you think that when the plane was refuelling at Heathrow (ie the AIRLINE decided to come to the UK,not her) she deliberately decided to try and squeeze out her kids THREE MONTHS prematurely so she could use the NHS for free? In which case, you'd be beneath contempt.
A health tourist is someone who deliberately comes to the UK to take advantage of the NHS when they are not entitled to it. Are you really trying to tell us this woman falls into this category?
Then again, no doubt you'd say the BBC can't be trusted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38809530
-
in the article in a metro newspaper and the fact that she is black don't make me a racist you prick ,I only put up what I recall reading,the words £500,000 ,health tourist,presicila,Nigeria,4 births, stopped in America,Chelsea hostpital ,heathrow flight stick in my mind.
So. There was a story about the tragic deaths of two babies, that you knew about, that you chose to push as an example of them foreigners coming over here to scam the NHS, even though the woman was flying back to Nigeria at the time. In the same story there were two babies who's lives were saved because of the efforts of the NHS, but you seem to think that's a bad thing because of the health tourism bogeyman.
Can't think why that, coupled with your recent ranting about several other black women in the news, and posting history in general, would lead people to think you were racist...
-
I had a rant about sturgeon other week ,how will that fit in with your profile bullshit
-
Now THAT woman deserves it.
-
I will add Lilly Allen to my list aswell and last time I looked she was white.
-
Why has every bloody argument got to resort to someone being accused of being racist? It really, REALLY is f**king pathetic.
-
Interesting to see last night that since the Tories decreased corporation tax they make far more money from it.
Corbyn is going to make Hospital car parking free by raising taxes on private health Insurance! Well as a person who pays £120 a month into such a scheme I will be pulling out of it and becoming another burden for the beleaguered NHS to worry about.
Likewise I would pull out also I suspect. Love to see also how labour plan to buy out the 20-30 year contracts put in place at hospitals by, erm labour.
Just the Labour ones? What about all those that Gideon set up but called a different name to fool people?
They would count also. The point is they're known about and can't be reversed without a big cost. The money that flows in these contracts will still need to flow, if there is none and trusts keep the cash it's more of a funding hole to bridge.
-
Why has every bloody argument got to resort to someone being accused of being racist? It really, REALLY is f**king pathetic.
Every argument? Or just ones that you know are full of lies and half truths, that you're using to push an objectively false agenda about foreigners coming over to scam the NHS in droves?
Bonus points for using a story about 2 dead babies.
-
Why single out his 'rantings about black women'?
-
Wasn't really singled out, considering it was paired with a comment about this story and his posting history in general. Granted he's also particularly vitriolic about other women, mainly powerful and opinionated ones, but all that speaks to is that he's not only a racist piece of shit, but a sexist piece of shit as well. So... well done?
Are you seriously suggesting there is no racist undertone to his postings in this thread, or dozens of other threads? Do you not reckon that should be challenged, particularly when - and here's the key point you and him seem to be keen to avoid - he's using a story about the deaths of two newborn babies to push some overblown, scarmongering, provably false bullshit?
-
I like the Labour manifesto, those industries should never have been nationalised in the first place. I value the NHS, the tories seem hell bent on destroying it. I will vote for the policies rather than the person
Having previously worked in the energy industry for nearly ten years, if you think it would be better in public hands, then you're serious misguided.
-
So he's just a plain sexist piece of shit if he says owt bad about Lily Allen and Nicola sturgeon, but if he says owt bad about Dianne Abbott or Priscilla the Nigerian lady he's a racist sexist piece of shit.
So to avoid being accused of being a racist or sexist piece of shit you can only aim your vitriol at British White males? Wouldn't that make you a racist and sexist piece of shit towards British White males?
-
Labour will plant a money tree? It doesn't add up to me. Create more jobs but tax those who create them.
You're a company you can pay a whack of tax here but be outside the eu or pay much less in Ireland with eu access - madness.
As for taxing those at 80k much more, 80k is not in some cases a huge amount of money. Justify that to a family in London with one working person. I tend to think the tax level may be too low but so is 80k.
On nationalisation, was it really any good before privatisation, really?
The key point for me is it just doesn't add up, the costings on the face of it seem to contradict a little. Devil in the detail of course.
It seems over the years Labour have been more trustworthy with our finances than the Tories
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
-
So he's just a plain sexist piece of shit if he says owt bad about Lily Allen and Nicola sturgeon, but if he says owt bad about Dianne Abbott or Priscilla the Nigerian lady he's a racist sexist piece of shit.
So to avoid being accused of being a racist or sexist piece of shit you can only aim your vitriol at British White males? Wouldn't that make you a racist and sexist piece of shit towards British White males?
Ahh, context changing and whataboutery. You up for election on June 8th by any chance?
There's a subtle (actually not that subtle) difference between "saying owt bad" about someone, and someone who regularly uses generalisations, lazy slurs and who openly admits to peddling lies and half-truths that he doesn't bother to check to push his agenda. But I suspect you know that. Context.
Nice work on once again ignoring the fact that Oslo is knowingly pushing a story about 2 babies dying, and openly stating that saving the other 2 babies was a bad thing, as an example of health tourism when it's nothing of the sort, just because the woman in question happens to be from Nigeria. As I say, context.
-
Figures can be used to argue cases for or against your preferred politics.
Take the National Debt(ND) for example.
One hundred years ago it was at a similar level to what it is right now.
Then came WW1(Liberal government) and as you would expect the ND went through the roof during the war years.
During the following 30 years split almost equally between Tory and Labour governments the debt came down until WW2 came along and again, as you would expect it shot up, to an all time high.
Then from around 1951 to around 1993 the ND fell consistently to the level of 1914.
In the following years to 2010 (17 years) under 14 years of Labour government the ND went to around its current (highest since 1970)level.
The level has remained roughly the same since under 7 years of Tory rule.
The point i am making is that this evidence would suggest that under a Labour government the ND is more likely to rise.
Obviously other outside factors come into play,wars for example, but as i stated, figures can be produced to argue a case for or against an argument.
-
Thats an interesting overview hound thanks. The first graph illustrates what you have said but takes it back it bit further and shows the history of the National Debt in relation to events at the time - essentially it was used to fund wars.
But where have you got your figures from?
Between the end of WW1 and the beginning of WW2 (20 years not 30) when there is a huge rise during the depression, Labour were in power for 3 years - including the period of National Government - and the Tories for 15 years.
No way has the debt stayed the same since 2010 as you can see from the other two graphs. In monatary terms it has doubled under the Tories - not quite as much as the rise given as a percentage of GDP.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
-
Ahh, context changing and whataboutery. You up for election on June 8th by any chance?
No I'm not up for election but if I was I wouldn't use the racist card against people to try and gain smarty points from those gullible enough to believe it.
-
WiltsRover, the 20/30 year error was a typo,unchecked due to dashing from work and not checking before posting.
Had you not spotted it though perhaps lots of people would have read and accepted it, further emphasising my point that written stats can be put out there to prove a point.
However, during those years the Labour Party was involved in Coalition governments for some eleven years of which Ramsay McDonald was in the driving seat for four of them.
Labour were in sole charge for around three years and the rest of that time had a Conservative PM.
In fact, during the time I was originally posting about, that 1918 to 1939 (21 years) the Conservatives were only in power for 11years, not 15.
If you read my post again you will see that I didn't say that the ND has stayed the same since 2010.
I said it has stayed roughly the same and currently is roughly where it was around 1970.
That is currently at about half of what it was in 1950 when Labour were in power.
From 1951 to 1974 the Conservatives were in power with the exception of a six year spell and the ND fell to approximately its current level.
Going back over your graph to 1721 to 1914 the Labour Party (The Whigs in those days) were in power for about 67 years against the Conservatives (The Tory party in those days) for 82 years.
Not really far off the same over that 193 year period.
The other years during that time were split between the Liberal and Coalitions in the main.
The highest that the ND figure has ever been was around the 1825-35 period.
The last Whig PM left office in 1852 and there wasn't another Whig/Labour government until 1924.
During those 72 years the ND fell consistently to its pre WW1 low.
-
The Labour Party was never the Whigs.
-
The Labour Party was never the Whigs.
The Labour and Liberal parties evolved from the Whigs.
The Conservatives evolved from the Tory party.
-
The Labour Party was never the Whigs.
The Labour and Liberal parties evolved from the Whigs.
The Conservatives evolved from the Tory party.
The Labour Party had no relation to the Whigs at all. It was formed from the trade union movement and various socialist groups.
-
The Labour Party was never the Whigs.
The Labour and Liberal parties evolved from the Whigs.
The Conservatives evolved from the Tory party.
Ah that's interesting, do tell us more....
You can start with the English Civil War and how the Whigs were successors to the roundheads and supported parliamentary supremacy, non-conformity and the merchant classes, whilst the Tories were the royalists, supported the king (initially the Stuart line) and his supremacy, rotten boroughs, the Church of England and the interests of the landed gentry.
There is also something about the Corn Laws and the Reform Acts which split the Tories - one group of which became the Conservative Party.
Then something about the Independent Labour Party, some bloke called Keir Hardie and the 1900 Labour Representation Conference - in which a bloke from Doncaster played a very important part.
-
WiltsRover, the 20/30 year error was a typo,unchecked due to dashing from work and not checking before posting.
Had you not spotted it though perhaps lots of people would have read and accepted it, further emphasising my point that written stats can be put out there to prove a point.
However, during those years the Labour Party was involved in Coalition governments for some eleven years of which Ramsay McDonald was in the driving seat for four of them.
Labour were in sole charge for around three years and the rest of that time had a Conservative PM.
In fact, during the time I was originally posting about, that 1918 to 1939 (21 years) the Conservatives were only in power for 11years, not 15.
If you read my post again you will see that I didn't say that the ND has stayed the same since 2010.
I said it has stayed roughly the same and currently is roughly where it was around 1970.
That is currently at about half of what it was in 1950 when Labour were in power.
From 1951 to 1974 the Conservatives were in power with the exception of a six year spell and the ND fell to approximately its current level.
Going back over your graph to 1721 to 1914 the Labour Party (The Whigs in those days) were in power for about 67 years against the Conservatives (The Tory party in those days) for 82 years.
Not really far off the same over that 193 year period.
The other years during that time were split between the Liberal and Coalitions in the main.
The highest that the ND figure has ever been was around the 1825-35 period.
The last Whig PM left office in 1852 and there wasn't another Whig/Labour government until 1924.
During those 72 years the ND fell consistently to its pre WW1 low.
They are not my graphs - they are all taken from that site I linked too - along with a lot more information you need to read.
You said Labour and the Tories were in power for equal periods between the wars. They weren't.
You have said twice, the ND is roughly the same now as in 2010. It isn't it has nearly doubled! What dont you believe about those graphs? Yes it may be roughly the same now as when Labour came to power in 1970 - under whom it went down. Under the Coalition and now the Tories - it has gone up. Even as they have run an austerity campaign to lower it.
Who won the elections of 1906 and 1910 btw?
-
Erm...Labour didn't come to power in 1970, they lost power!
-
Just a small point, the Whigs became the old Liberal Party, not Labour.
-
Erm...Labour didn't come to power in 1970, they lost power!
Errrm, where did i say labour came to power in 1970 ??
As you bring it up though, they were actually in power in that year, well until 19th of June when they lost the General Election.
-
WiltsRover, as i was saying, you can post figures to suit your cause.
You say that between the Wars Labour were only in power for three years.
Well i guess that is based on the fact that you don't want to consider the spell from 29-35 when McDonald was PM as the head of the Labour Party.
As you will know, Labour had power in 1924 then won again in 29.
McDonald was Pm until 1935.
So that is 7 years in which they had power not 3 as you suggested.
Before you say anything about part of that time being a Labour lead Coalition you should consider that Cameron was the head of a Conservative lead Coalition so if you are not counting the 31-35 part of McDonalds reign as being Labour in power you cant then consider the Conservative-LibDem Coalition time as being wholey Conservatives in power.
-
Erm...Labour didn't come to power in 1970, they lost power!
Errrm, where did i say labour came to power in 1970 ??
As you bring it up though, they were actually in power in that year, well until 19th of June when they lost the General Election.
You didn't wilts did, in the post immediately before I wrote that.
btw, are you still maintaining that the Labour Party grew out of the Whigs? Even though the Whig Party pretty much disappeared in 1868 and the Labour Party wasn't formed until 1906..?
-
Yes my bad, I was replying back to hounds earlier piece and meant to say the 70's.
-
WiltsRover, as i was saying, you can post figures to suit your cause.
You say that between the Wars Labour were only in power for three years.
Well i guess that is based on the fact that you don't want to consider the spell from 29-35 when McDonald was PM as the head of the Labour Party.
As you will know, Labour had power in 1924 then won again in 29.
McDonald was Pm until 1935.
So that is 7 years in which they had power not 3 as you suggested.
Before you say anything about part of that time being a Labour lead Coalition you should consider that Cameron was the head of a Conservative lead Coalition so if you are not counting the 31-35 part of McDonalds reign as being Labour in power you cant then consider the Conservative-LibDem Coalition time as being wholey Conservatives in power.
Yes hound I can post figures to suit my case - because my case is based on real figures and statistics. You just come out with some waffle without any actual facts to back it up - or get them totally wrong.
Between the wars a Labour government was in power:
January 1924 to October 1924
May 1929 to October 1931
In October 1931 a National Government was formed consisting of members of all parties. The Labour Party refused to sanction this and MacDonald, Snowden and the other Labour members who joined the NG were expelled from the Labour Party and formed their own 'party' so that they could continue as MP's - the official Labour Party then continued as a separate entity in opposition to the NG. Thus Labour was not in power after October 1921 and was not involved in a coalition after October 1931.
The Conservatives were the leading power in the National Government and it was their policies that government carried out. So Labour was in power for 3 years and 2 months between the wars. The Conservatives were in power for 15 years.
-
With Ramsey McDonald as Prime Minister, a Labour man.
-
With Ramsey McDonald as Prime Minister, a Labour man.
Did you miss the bit about him being expelled from Labour?
If you're going to say he was still a Labour PM even though he wasn't in the Labour Party anymore then I can say that Churchill was still a Liberal all the time he was PM..!
-
I also read up about the National Government and on the website i was on it was listed as Labour National Government.
So, to prove your point you are counting four years of a Labour National Government with McDonald as PM as four years of Conservative rule.
-
I also read up about the National Government and on the website i was on it was listed as Labour National Government.
So, to prove your point you are counting four years of a Labour National Government with McDonald as PM as four years of Conservative rule.
It was neither as it was a coalition.
-
You are really taking this to the extreme but only to suit your argument.
The 31-35 period was National Labour Government headed up by McDonald.
If you look up "National Government" on a search engine it will tell you as much, however it will also tell you that it is historically regarded as us having a National Government for the period from 31-40, covering the leaderships of McDonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain.
You posted earlier that the 31-35 period was run in the main by Conservative principles but the opposite is true.
Conservative MP's actually held minor roles in the cabinet and their policies were in the main, unrepresented.
You say that the Conservatives were in power for 15 years between 1918 and 1939.
Which 15 years are you including?
From the list below, even including the National Government years i can still only get to eleven years.
On the list of British Prime Ministers that i read it clearly says the following:
Lloyd George 1916-22 Liberal Coalition
Bonar Law 1922 Conservative
Baldwin 1923 Conservative
McDonald 1924 Labour
Baldwin 1924-29 Conservative
McDonald 1929-31 Labour
McDonald 1931-35 National Labour (National Government)
Baldwin 1935-37 Conservative (National Government)
Chamberlain 1937-40 Conservative (National Government)
The National Governments were formed at the intervention of King George The Fifth, unlike the previous and since Coalitions which came about through agreements between political parties.
-
You are really taking this to the extreme but only to suit your argument.
The 31-35 period was National Labour Government headed up by McDonald.
If you look up "National Government" on a search engine it will tell you as much, however it will also tell you that it is historically regarded as us having a National Government for the period from 31-40, covering the leaderships of McDonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain.
You posted earlier that the 31-35 period was run in the main by Conservative principles but the opposite is true.
Conservative MP's actually held minor roles in the cabinet and their policies were in the main, unrepresented.
You say that the Conservatives were in power for 15 years between 1918 and 1939.
Which 15 years are you including?
From the list below, even including the National Government years i can still only get to eleven years.
On the list of British Prime Ministers that i read it clearly says the following:
Lloyd George 1916-22 Liberal Coalition
Bonar Law 1922 Conservative
Baldwin 1923 Conservative
McDonald 1924 Labour
Baldwin 1924-29 Conservative
McDonald 1929-31 Labour
McDonald 1931-35 National Labour (National Government)
Baldwin 1935-37 Conservative (National Government)
Chamberlain 1937-40 Conservative (National Government)
The National Governments were formed at the intervention of King George The Fifth, unlike the previous and since Coalitions which came about through agreements between political parties.
Who is this directed at? Because you keep saying "You say" when I've done no such thing.
-
Glyn, you on the so called Coalition thing and WiltsRovers on the 15 years of Conservative rule thing.
-
What do you not understand about being expelled from the Labour Party means you are not a member of the Labour Party - whatever you call yourself! Here is some reading for you:
James Ramsay MacDonald became Britain’s first Labour Party Prime Minister for a few months in 1924. A committed socialist and pacifist, he returned to 10 Downing Street in June 1929, but the country was overwhelmed by the Great Depression and in August 1931, after protracted discussions with the other party leaders and at the urging of King George V, MacDonald formed a national government of leading Labour, Conservative and Liberal politicians.
Most of the Labour Party was horrified and, for putting the national interest before party interest, MacDonald was denounced as a traitor to his class and expelled. The public thought differently and a general election in October gave the government its ‘doctor’s mandate’ with an unprecedentedly massive majority. It was dominated by the Conservatives, whose leaders Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain effectively took control of domestic policy. MacDonald concentrated on foreign affairs and the League of Nations.
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald
Macdonald was the first British Labour Prime Minister, but his decision in 1931 to lead a coalition government was considered a betrayal by many in the party he had done much to create.
In 1929, MacDonald returned to power, but his government was soon faced with a worldwide economic recession, for which it was not prepared. MacDonald and other leading ministers, notably the chancellor Philip Snowden, felt they had no alternative but to cut public expenditure, including unemployment benefit. The cabinet split, and MacDonald formed a National Government with Conservative, and some Liberal, support. The subsequent general election decimated the Labour Party but left MacDonald and his tiny handful of 'National Labour' members of parliament in power - although as little more than a front for a Conservative-dominated administration.
MacDonald soldiered on as prime minister until 1935. He was, however, an increasingly forlorn and unhappy figure, treated with contempt by Conservatives and with hatred by members of the party of which he had once been the unchallenged and charismatic leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml
The consequences were dramatic. MacDonald led a ‘National Government’ comprised of the Conservatives, some Liberals and very few Labour MPs; all members or associates of the National Government were expelled by the Labour Party.
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/
-
Glyn, you on the so called Coalition thing and WiltsRovers on the 15 years of Conservative rule thing.
So what was the 2010-2015 government according to you then?
-
There are lies, damn lies and election manifestos
-
What do you not understand about being expelled from the Labour Party means you are not a member of the Labour Party - whatever you call yourself! Here is some reading for you:
James Ramsay MacDonald became Britain’s first Labour Party Prime Minister for a few months in 1924. A committed socialist and pacifist, he returned to 10 Downing Street in June 1929, but the country was overwhelmed by the Great Depression and in August 1931, after protracted discussions with the other party leaders and at the urging of King George V, MacDonald formed a national government of leading Labour, Conservative and Liberal politicians.
Most of the Labour Party was horrified and, for putting the national interest before party interest, MacDonald was denounced as a traitor to his class and expelled. The public thought differently and a general election in October gave the government its ‘doctor’s mandate’ with an unprecedentedly massive majority. It was dominated by the Conservatives, whose leaders Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain effectively took control of domestic policy. MacDonald concentrated on foreign affairs and the League of Nations.
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald
Macdonald was the first British Labour Prime Minister, but his decision in 1931 to lead a coalition government was considered a betrayal by many in the party he had done much to create.
In 1929, MacDonald returned to power, but his government was soon faced with a worldwide economic recession, for which it was not prepared. MacDonald and other leading ministers, notably the chancellor Philip Snowden, felt they had no alternative but to cut public expenditure, including unemployment benefit. The cabinet split, and MacDonald formed a National Government with Conservative, and some Liberal, support. The subsequent general election decimated the Labour Party but left MacDonald and his tiny handful of 'National Labour' members of parliament in power - although as little more than a front for a Conservative-dominated administration.
MacDonald soldiered on as prime minister until 1935. He was, however, an increasingly forlorn and unhappy figure, treated with contempt by Conservatives and with hatred by members of the party of which he had once been the unchallenged and charismatic leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml
The consequences were dramatic. MacDonald led a ‘National Government’ comprised of the Conservatives, some Liberals and very few Labour MPs; all members or associates of the National Government were expelled by the Labour Party.
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/
Quite a different read to the one I read, which asks the question, which is the most reliable read and is the opinion of the writer of each version.
It is fine for you to believe your version if you want to.
As is true in politics, put your own spin on it and see who believes your version.
-
Glyn, you on the so called Coalition thing and WiltsRovers on the 15 years of Conservative rule thing.
So what was the 2010-2015 government according to you then?
The 2010-2015 government WAS a Coalition.
Put together by two political parties.
The 1931 to 1940 was a National Government as directed by the then King.
Two very different things.
I answered your question so how about telling me which were the fifteen years that you keep banging on about.
-
What do you not understand about being expelled from the Labour Party means you are not a member of the Labour Party - whatever you call yourself! Here is some reading for you:
James Ramsay MacDonald became Britain’s first Labour Party Prime Minister for a few months in 1924. A committed socialist and pacifist, he returned to 10 Downing Street in June 1929, but the country was overwhelmed by the Great Depression and in August 1931, after protracted discussions with the other party leaders and at the urging of King George V, MacDonald formed a national government of leading Labour, Conservative and Liberal politicians.
Most of the Labour Party was horrified and, for putting the national interest before party interest, MacDonald was denounced as a traitor to his class and expelled. The public thought differently and a general election in October gave the government its ‘doctor’s mandate’ with an unprecedentedly massive majority. It was dominated by the Conservatives, whose leaders Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain effectively took control of domestic policy. MacDonald concentrated on foreign affairs and the League of Nations.
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald
Macdonald was the first British Labour Prime Minister, but his decision in 1931 to lead a coalition government was considered a betrayal by many in the party he had done much to create.
In 1929, MacDonald returned to power, but his government was soon faced with a worldwide economic recession, for which it was not prepared. MacDonald and other leading ministers, notably the chancellor Philip Snowden, felt they had no alternative but to cut public expenditure, including unemployment benefit. The cabinet split, and MacDonald formed a National Government with Conservative, and some Liberal, support. The subsequent general election decimated the Labour Party but left MacDonald and his tiny handful of 'National Labour' members of parliament in power - although as little more than a front for a Conservative-dominated administration.
MacDonald soldiered on as prime minister until 1935. He was, however, an increasingly forlorn and unhappy figure, treated with contempt by Conservatives and with hatred by members of the party of which he had once been the unchallenged and charismatic leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml
The consequences were dramatic. MacDonald led a ‘National Government’ comprised of the Conservatives, some Liberals and very few Labour MPs; all members or associates of the National Government were expelled by the Labour Party.
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/
Quite a different read to the one I read, which asks the question, which is the most reliable read and is the opinion of the writer of each version.
It is fine for you to believe your version if you want to.
As is true in politics, put your own spin on it and see who believes your version.
How many times do I have to tell you It's Not My Version - its a fact. From a verifiable and academically reputable source. Or in this instance three verifiable and academically reputable sources sources:
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald - History Today one of (if not the ) leading historical magazines in publication for over 70 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml - the BBC, you may have heard of them
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/ - an academic study into the the History of Parliament governed by its Trustees, who are mainly Members and Officers of both Houses of Parliament (that big fancy building in London, you may have heard of it)
I could probably find another 30 that say the same thing. I would struggle to find one that says Macdonald was still a member of the Labour Party after 1931 - because he wasn't. However if you can - please show us?
-
Glyn, you on the so called Coalition thing and WiltsRovers on the 15 years of Conservative rule thing.
So what was the 2010-2015 government according to you then?
The 2010-2015 government WAS a Coalition.
Put together by two political parties.
The 1931 to 1940 was a National Government as directed by the then King.
Two very different things.
I answered your question so how about telling me which were the fifteen years that you keep banging on about.
I haven't banged on about any fifteen years..?
PS A coalition is a government made up of people from two or more political parties. Giving it a name like 'National Government' doesn't change the nature of being a coalition. Nor does it change according to who created it. It's still a coalition.
-
so to summarise, Labour will:
Only increase taxes for those earning > £80k a year
Increase taxes for large corporations
Outlaw zero hours contracts
Invest £8 billion in to the NHS
Ring-fence mental health budgets
Scrap university tuition fees
Give fair notice when increase the pension age
Build 100,000 new houses a year
Bring back rail and post office to public ownership
Hire 10,000 more police officers
Scrap bedroom tax
The Tories will:
Reduce taxes for everyone, but more so the super-rich
Increase inheritance allowance
Bring back fox-hunting
Carry-on privatising NHS services
Carry-on trying to reduce the deficit (which they've increase in the last 7 years under austerity)
Cap welfare
"Deliver the best schools"
is that about right? tough choice...
:facepalm:
Those Labour ones,you do realise how many of them would bite the dust under ever closer union,seems Labour are celebrating Brexit whilst saying they wouldn't commit to it if elected... Wigley dots...100.000 houses eh,how many more would be needed under unlimited mass migration that Worzel Gummidge favoso to summarise, Labour will:
Only increase taxes for those earning > £80k a year
Increase taxes for large corporations
Outlaw zero hours contracts
Invest £8 billion in to the NHS
Ring-fence mental health budgets
Scrap university tuition fees
Give fair notice when increase the pension age
Build 100,000 new houses a year
Bring back rail and post office to public ownership
Hire 10,000 more police officers
Scrap bedroom tax
The Tories will:
Reduce taxes for everyone, but more so the super-rich
Increase inheritance allowance
Bring back fox-hunting
Carry-on privatising NHS services
Carry-on trying to reduce the deficit (which they've increase in the last 7 years under austerity)
Cap welfare
"Deliver the best schools"
is that about right? tough choice...
:facepalm:
Labour will put our economy on a par with the 3rd world , where most are run by left wing dictators who think making money and having aspirations for your self and your family and should paid for by very high taxing forcing you to the point where think of leaving the country of your birth .
Companies will never set up base in the U.K. If the tax system will not allow them to earn , employ and expand .
Labour DO NOT want to be in government as they feel more effective as an opposition party throwing insults at those who need to make hard decisions , for Labour has not got the personal on the front line to run a government and I am a card carrying member of Labour . Corbyn OUT!!!
[/quote)
Susan ,is that the message you are taking to the doorsteps as a card carrying member of a socialist party respecting the democratic mandate of the rank and file ?The next time you are walking through town and have to step over someone laying in a shop doorway you can console yourself that you did your very best for the individual concerned .Would you not be more comfortable in the SDP if you are so dead set against policies that reflect JCs agenda.At least they had the integrety to jump ship rather than hijack it .Talk about keep your friends close and your enemies closer .You and your like disgust me to my core
-
What do you not understand about being expelled from the Labour Party means you are not a member of the Labour Party - whatever you call yourself! Here is some reading for you:
James Ramsay MacDonald became Britain’s first Labour Party Prime Minister for a few months in 1924. A committed socialist and pacifist, he returned to 10 Downing Street in June 1929, but the country was overwhelmed by the Great Depression and in August 1931, after protracted discussions with the other party leaders and at the urging of King George V, MacDonald formed a national government of leading Labour, Conservative and Liberal politicians.
Most of the Labour Party was horrified and, for putting the national interest before party interest, MacDonald was denounced as a traitor to his class and expelled. The public thought differently and a general election in October gave the government its ‘doctor’s mandate’ with an unprecedentedly massive majority. It was dominated by the Conservatives, whose leaders Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain effectively took control of domestic policy. MacDonald concentrated on foreign affairs and the League of Nations.
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald
Macdonald was the first British Labour Prime Minister, but his decision in 1931 to lead a coalition government was considered a betrayal by many in the party he had done much to create.
In 1929, MacDonald returned to power, but his government was soon faced with a worldwide economic recession, for which it was not prepared. MacDonald and other leading ministers, notably the chancellor Philip Snowden, felt they had no alternative but to cut public expenditure, including unemployment benefit. The cabinet split, and MacDonald formed a National Government with Conservative, and some Liberal, support. The subsequent general election decimated the Labour Party but left MacDonald and his tiny handful of 'National Labour' members of parliament in power - although as little more than a front for a Conservative-dominated administration.
MacDonald soldiered on as prime minister until 1935. He was, however, an increasingly forlorn and unhappy figure, treated with contempt by Conservatives and with hatred by members of the party of which he had once been the unchallenged and charismatic leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml
The consequences were dramatic. MacDonald led a ‘National Government’ comprised of the Conservatives, some Liberals and very few Labour MPs; all members or associates of the National Government were expelled by the Labour Party.
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/
Quite a different read to the one I read, which asks the question, which is the most reliable read and is the opinion of the writer of each version.
It is fine for you to believe your version if you want to.
As is true in politics, put your own spin on it and see who believes your version.
How many times do I have to tell you It's Not My Version - its a fact. From a verifiable and academically reputable source. Or in this instance three verifiable and academically reputable sources sources:
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald - History Today one of (if not the ) leading historical magazines in publication for over 70 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml - the BBC, you may have heard of them
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/ - an academic study into the the History of Parliament governed by its Trustees, who are mainly Members and Officers of both Houses of Parliament (that big fancy building in London, you may have heard of it)
I could probably find another 30 that say the same thing. I would struggle to find one that says Macdonald was still a member of the Labour Party after 1931 - because he wasn't. However if you can - please show us?
I have never said that was still in the Labour Party.
However, as a staunch Labour man of his time, he would not have changed his values.
His then cabinet did include some Conservative members but none of them held senior posts.
I could probably find a bunch of people to support my viewpoint too.
-
Glyn, you on the so called Coalition thing and WiltsRovers on the 15 years of Conservative rule thing.
So what was the 2010-2015 government according to you then?
The 2010-2015 government WAS a Coalition.
Put together by two political parties.
The 1931 to 1940 was a National Government as directed by the then King.
Two very different things.
I answered your question so how about telling me which were the fifteen years that you keep banging on about.
I haven't banged on about any fifteen years..?
PS A coalition is a government made up of people from two or more political parties. Giving it a name like 'National Government' doesn't change the nature of being a coalition. Nor does it change according to who created it. It's still a coalition.
The question about fifteen years should have been directed to WiltsRover.
I agree that the National Government is similar in nature to a Coalition but it isn't actually a Coalition.
-
I agree that the National Government is similar in nature to a Coalition but it isn't actually a Coalition.
Very first line:
"In the United Kingdom, National Government is an abstract concept referring to a coalition of some or all major political parties."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_(United_Kingdom)
Very first line:
"The 1931 election made a mockery of the adversarial system, returning a 550-strong coalition government of Conservatives, Liberals and Labourites."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/04/electionspast.past6
Very first line:
"Macdonald was the first British Labour prime minister, but his decision in 1931 to lead a coalition government was considered a betrayal by many in the party he had done much to create."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml
-
His then cabinet did include some Conservative members but none of them held senior posts.
What about the posts held by neither Conservative nor former-Labour but by the Liberals? I wouldn't call Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary non-senior posts..!
-
What do you not understand about being expelled from the Labour Party means you are not a member of the Labour Party - whatever you call yourself! Here is some reading for you:
James Ramsay MacDonald became Britain’s first Labour Party Prime Minister for a few months in 1924. A committed socialist and pacifist, he returned to 10 Downing Street in June 1929, but the country was overwhelmed by the Great Depression and in August 1931, after protracted discussions with the other party leaders and at the urging of King George V, MacDonald formed a national government of leading Labour, Conservative and Liberal politicians.
Most of the Labour Party was horrified and, for putting the national interest before party interest, MacDonald was denounced as a traitor to his class and expelled. The public thought differently and a general election in October gave the government its ‘doctor’s mandate’ with an unprecedentedly massive majority. It was dominated by the Conservatives, whose leaders Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain effectively took control of domestic policy. MacDonald concentrated on foreign affairs and the League of Nations.
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald
Macdonald was the first British Labour Prime Minister, but his decision in 1931 to lead a coalition government was considered a betrayal by many in the party he had done much to create.
In 1929, MacDonald returned to power, but his government was soon faced with a worldwide economic recession, for which it was not prepared. MacDonald and other leading ministers, notably the chancellor Philip Snowden, felt they had no alternative but to cut public expenditure, including unemployment benefit. The cabinet split, and MacDonald formed a National Government with Conservative, and some Liberal, support. The subsequent general election decimated the Labour Party but left MacDonald and his tiny handful of 'National Labour' members of parliament in power - although as little more than a front for a Conservative-dominated administration.
MacDonald soldiered on as prime minister until 1935. He was, however, an increasingly forlorn and unhappy figure, treated with contempt by Conservatives and with hatred by members of the party of which he had once been the unchallenged and charismatic leader.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml
The consequences were dramatic. MacDonald led a ‘National Government’ comprised of the Conservatives, some Liberals and very few Labour MPs; all members or associates of the National Government were expelled by the Labour Party.
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/
Quite a different read to the one I read, which asks the question, which is the most reliable read and is the opinion of the writer of each version.
It is fine for you to believe your version if you want to.
As is true in politics, put your own spin on it and see who believes your version.
How many times do I have to tell you It's Not My Version - its a fact. From a verifiable and academically reputable source. Or in this instance three verifiable and academically reputable sources sources:
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-ramsay-macdonald - History Today one of (if not the ) leading historical magazines in publication for over 70 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml - the BBC, you may have heard of them
https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/labour-unrest-ramsay-macdonald-and-the-labour-party-1931/ - an academic study into the the History of Parliament governed by its Trustees, who are mainly Members and Officers of both Houses of Parliament (that big fancy building in London, you may have heard of it)
I could probably find another 30 that say the same thing. I would struggle to find one that says Macdonald was still a member of the Labour Party after 1931 - because he wasn't. However if you can - please show us?
I have never said that was still in the Labour Party.
Yes you did. this is what we are arguing about - how long was the Labour Party in power and what responsibility did it have for the National Debt in the 2's and 30's. During this time Labour were in power for 3 years - the Conservatives (including their time as the leading power in the National Government) for 15 years.
However, as a staunch Labour man of his time, he would not have changed his values.
Despite all you have read about him being called a traitor and expelled from the Party for not upholding Labour values but instead following the Tory line.
His then cabinet did include some Conservative members but none of them held senior posts.
I could probably find a bunch of people to support my viewpoint too.
Go on then.
-
This is getting tedious now, so, either you or Glyn ( i now cant be bothered to read back through the posts) said you could get 30 people to back your story up, so one of you go first.
Regarding Mc Donald being a staunch labour man, well leopards don't change their spots do they?
Again, i dont recall a post where i actually did say he was still in the Labour party, perhaps you have time to read back and highlight this.
That 15 years thing is just not true either, add up the years and list the 15 you are on about.
Anyway, as you have now reverted to sarcasm using derogatory terms to respond to me i will call it a day.
-
His then cabinet did include some Conservative members but none of them held senior posts.
What about the posts held by neither Conservative nor former-Labour but by the Liberals? I wouldn't call Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary non-senior posts..!
Glynn, much twisting of words here.
Did i ever say that Liberals hadnt held senior posts in the cabinet.??
No is the answer.
-
At last, a manifesto that 95% of us can and should get behind: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39930865
And if anyone wants to suggest Labour's sums don't add up, I would suggest rather than criticise, why not just compare it with what the Tories are "offering", and remind yourself on how austerity is working out (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/02/uk-cuts-tax-deficit-ifs-austerity-public-spending)...
-
The austerity piece is written in The Guardian, traditionally a left leaning paper.
-
His then cabinet did include some Conservative members but none of them held senior posts.
What about the posts held by neither Conservative nor former-Labour but by the Liberals? I wouldn't call Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary non-senior posts..!
Glynn, much twisting of words here.
Did i ever say that Liberals hadnt held senior posts in the cabinet.??
No is the answer.
Are you still maintaining it's a Labour government even now though?
-
Regarding Mc Donald being a staunch labour man, well leopards don't change their spots do they?
Are you seriously telling everybody here that the Conservatives and Liberals both not only fully supported a full-blooded Labour manifsto, but also actively helped in carrying it out by being the Ministers that administered it?
Or - as history properly records - it was a true coalition and therefore it was government by compromise by all sides?
-
Regarding Mc Donald being a staunch labour man, well leopards don't change their spots do they?
Well yes. Because that is why he was expelled from the Labour Party for carrying out Conservative policies that the Labour Party opposed and did not believe a socialist would have any involvement with.
Again, i dont recall a post where i actually did say he was still in the Labour party, perhaps you have time to read back and highlight this.
If you insist:
In Post 56 you wrote (my bold):
During the following 30 years split almost equally between Tory and Labour governments the debt came down until WW2 came along…
In Post 68 you wrote (my bold)
Well i guess that is based on the fact that you don't want to consider the spell from 29-35 when McDonald was PM as the head of the Labour Party.
That 15 years thing is just not true either, add up the years and list the 15 you are on about.
You are quite correct- I had not included their period as part of Lloyd George's coalition immediately following the Armistice. So between the wars the Conservatives (either alone or as part of a coalition) were in power for a total of 17 years and 2 months:
Dec 1918 to October 1922 - 3 years 10 months
Nov 1922 to Dec 1923 - 1 year 1 month
October 1924 to May 1929 - 4 years 7 months
October 1931 to Nov 1935 as part of National Government - 4 years
Nov 1935 to outbreak of war September 1939 - 3 years 11 months
Whereas Labour (either alone or as part of a coalition) were in power for:
January 1924 to October 1924
May 1929 to October 1931
a total of 3 years and 2 months
And just to remind ourselves what I have said several times already in this thread, the official Labour Party were not involved in the National Government after the October 1931 election. They were the opposition (what was left of them).
Anyway, as you have now reverted to sarcasm using derogatory terms to respond to me i will call it a day.
-
Back on topic, what is there not to like about the Labour manifesto after todays official launch?
-
I can certainly see why Syme has been banned from this forum and Oslo hasn't.
Get him back in I say and he was not banned on my account for the record,I thought he was on holiday or something.
Variety the spice of life is what I stand by .
As for me having racist undertones what a load of poppycock ,I say what I think or see and I could be wrong or right on that view as that's all it is a view .
i don't subscribe too any right wing party's or go on any right wing. March .i do have some right wing friends but allways keep them at arms length .
If I call Diane abbot out for whatever ,it's not my fault that she has dark skin it's her fault for been a fcuking idiot .
-
I like the Labour manifesto, those industries should never have been nationalised in the first place. I value the NHS, the tories seem hell bent on destroying it. I will vote for the policies rather than the person
You can put anything you want on a manifesto, particularly when you know you haven't a prayer of implementing it as Labour under Corbyn are just a talking shop of leftist ideals of a distant past .
I worked through Labours lefties manifesto of the past and creating employment has never been their forte . Strikes and power cuts were the order of the day .
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week . It will not take long when Brexit kicks with Labour to go back to the days of no work no food no future for the many . Corbyn' s Monemtum cronies will destroy our ability to grow by scaring away investors with the crazy ideas of taxing everything and everyone and loose vital manufacturing jobs . The country has to be pragmatic and look beyond this day and plan carefully through this minefield of Brexit .
-
I like the Labour manifesto, those industries should never have been nationalised in the first place. I value the NHS, the tories seem hell bent on destroying it. I will vote for the policies rather than the person
You can put anything you want on a manifesto, particularly when you know you haven't a prayer of implementing it as Labour under Corbyn are just a talking shop of leftist ideals of a distant past .
I worked through Labours lefties manifesto of the past and creating employment has never been their forte . Strikes and power cuts were the order of the day .
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week . It will not take long when Brexit kicks with Labour to go back to the days of no work no food no future for the many . Corbyn' s Monemtum cronies will destroy our ability to grow by scaring away investors with the crazy ideas of taxing everything and everyone and loose vital manufacturing jobs . The country has to be pragmatic and look beyond this day and plan carefully through this minefield of Brexit .
No mention of the NHS, or the failed austerity. The attack on the disabled, whilst the rich just get richer with tax cuts in your brainwashed view there
P.s. No food?
How do you explain the dramatic rise in the number of foodbanks in the 7 years the Tories have been in power?
No future?
What future have the many disabled got now their money has been taken away from them?
-
I vote for Susan abbot
Sorry it's Susan Abbott
-
Susan, well said, lots of sense in that post.
No doubt that Glyn and Wilts will be back at you soon.
I have got bored of them now.
-
I like the Labour manifesto, those industries should never have been nationalised in the first place. I value the NHS, the tories seem hell bent on destroying it. I will vote for the policies rather than the person
You can put anything you want on a manifesto, particularly when you know you haven't a prayer of implementing it as Labour under Corbyn are just a talking shop of leftist ideals of a distant past .
I worked through Labours lefties manifesto of the past and creating employment has never been their forte . Strikes and power cuts were the order of the day .
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week . It will not take long when Brexit kicks with Labour to go back to the days of no work no food no future for the many . Corbyn' s Monemtum cronies will destroy our ability to grow by scaring away investors with the crazy ideas of taxing everything and everyone and loose vital manufacturing jobs . The country has to be pragmatic and look beyond this day and plan carefully through this minefield of Brexit .
No mention of the NHS, or the failed austerity. The attack on the disabled, whilst the rich just get richer with tax cuts in your brainwashed view there
P.s. No food?
How do you explain the dramatic rise in the number of foodbanks in the 7 years the Tories have been in power?
No future?
What future have the many disabled got now their money has been taken away from them?
Most of what you grieve about can be put into the last 10 years where the population was allowed to grow beyond our capacity to maintain it , add this to a world wide banking collapse and now Brexit . I am a card carrying Labour voter and I will not be voting as I just can't put my cross next to a Tory candidate. But I can tell you this NOW is not Labour time as this lefties infiltrated party is about to collapse into oblivion.
-
I think Susan will take them two with one arm tied behind her back
-
I like the Labour manifesto, those industries should never have been nationalised in the first place. I value the NHS, the tories seem hell bent on destroying it. I will vote for the policies rather than the person
You can put anything you want on a manifesto, particularly when you know you haven't a prayer of implementing it as Labour under Corbyn are just a talking shop of leftist ideals of a distant past .
I worked through Labours lefties manifesto of the past and creating employment has never been their forte . Strikes and power cuts were the order of the day .
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week . It will not take long when Brexit kicks with Labour to go back to the days of no work no food no future for the many . Corbyn' s Monemtum cronies will destroy our ability to grow by scaring away investors with the crazy ideas of taxing everything and everyone and loose vital manufacturing jobs . The country has to be pragmatic and look beyond this day and plan carefully through this minefield of Brexit .
In 1945 the National Debt was over 200% of GDP, today it is around 40%.
The Attlee Government didn't impose austerity and cut back on public expenditure. Instead they invested in infrastructure, the manufacturing industry and created the Welfare state and the National Health Service.
In 7 years the Tories have continued to borrow at higher levels every year and whilst the deficit isn't going up it isn't coming down by much either.
We keep getting told we have a strong economy but the cost of that has been rising use of food banks (from 46,000 a year to over a million a year), homelessness doubling (when the budget for councils to deal with homeslessness was halved co-incidentally), the NHS is in crisis, (overworked and underpaid nurses have just agreed to ballot for a strike over pay), cuts to Education, cuts to disability allowance, cuts to tax credits and whilst employment has risen it still remains terribly low for 19-24 year olds, (who on average have more debt than assets) and zero hour contracts obscuring the true reflection of 'employment'.
We justify cuts to tax credits, the bedroom tax and cuts to disability allowance because we need to cut back public spending, but at the same time we can cut the top rate of tax by 5% and allow MNCs to negotiate the tax they pay.
You can call Corbyn a loony left idealist but he's put forward a plan with no hidden agenda and a clear intention; he wants to close the gap of inequality. This election represents probably the greatest chance to not just change the government but our entire democratic structure. As someone who voted for the Conservatives in the last 2 elections and consider myself Centre-right I actually believe in Corbyn. I'm fairly confident he will deliver a shock and a victory on the 8th June.
-
I sat and watched what corbyn said today and he had me nodding my head through his speech .
But then the tv zoomed into Diane abbott and then I pictured all the other loons and nut jobs within the ranks of Labour Party.
Then it went to questions from the Labour supporters and the first chap up was what I was exactly fearing .
-
Corbin is picking his venues very well too.
What better place to visit than a University when announcing banning tuition fees.
No wonder they were cheering him.
-
Corbin is picking his venues very well too.
What better place to visit than a University when announcing banning tuition fees.
No wonder they were cheering him.
Yes a bit like May visiting the working class North East and then bussing in Tory activists to cheer her, all for the BBC Cameras, no locals were allowed anywhere near!
-
Corbin is picking his venues very well too.
What better place to visit than a University when announcing banning tuition fees.
No wonder they were cheering him.
Yes a bit like May visiting the working class North East and then bussing in Tory activists to cheer her, all for the BBC Cameras, no locals were allowed anywhere near!
But don't forget that the Torys are also pledging to help the many as well.
-
Corbin is picking his venues very well too.
What better place to visit than a University when announcing banning tuition fees.
No wonder they were cheering him.
Yes a bit like May visiting the working class North East and then bussing in Tory activists to cheer her, all for the BBC Cameras, no locals were allowed anywhere near!
But don't forget that the Torys are also pledging to help the many as well.
The rich
-
Well while some people are believing everything that Jeremy is promising are they not listening to the PM who has promised some of the same things.
As I said earlier in the week, Jeremy can promise all he wants because he will not get the opportunity of being able to progress them.
-
Well while some people are believing everything that Jeremy is promising are they not listening to the PM who has promised some of the same things.
As I said earlier in the week, Jeremy can promise all he wants because he will not get the opportunity of being able to progress them.
Labour currently polling at 33%, a 9% rise from when the election was called, if the Tory vote share drops to 40% it will be a 15% swing and we'll see a hung parliament. Corbyn only needs a 19% swing to deliver a majority.
The Tories vote share in the local elections was 38% - 10% lower than what they were polling and in majority of seats where they have a majority.
A foregone conclusion this election is not.
-
We shall see, as we know, the polls are not too accurate are they.
-
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week .
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
-
There is a Full Fact check on the manifesto proposals;
Full Fact (https://fullfact.org/)
Some might find it useful.
-
But don't forget that the Torys are also pledging to help the many as well.
By increasing National Insurance contributions as they wanted to in the last month's budget do you mean?
By cutting disability and widow/widowers benefits as they did last month do you mean?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-benefit-cuts-today-disability-10144250
Wages rising at 2.2%. Inflation rising at 2.7%. Is that what you mean?
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/wage-growth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39932653
The wealth of the richest 5% increasing by 14% - that's what you really mean isn't it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39830087
and I nearly forgot the massive business rate rise that will affect many small businesses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39000471
The many can help the few get richer. Go on you vote for them if thats your philosophy.
-
I think Susan will take them two with one arm tied behind her back
You are probably right there - she scares me stiff with what she posts on here so I definatley dont ever want to meet her!
-
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week .
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
Yes I was there and I was getting a pay rise every week due the currency being devalued and to compensate everyone just to help maintain their living standards and we were on less than a £ an hour or £40 a week for a skilled person . Labour are spend today pay for it next week . Corbyn is poison and he was around even then the parasite. The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties . Believe me when I tell you Tories ruthless bas**rds but the Labour are just thick bas**rds who can't agree even with themselves .
-
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
Yes I was there and I was getting a pay rise every week due the currency being devalued and to compensate everyone just to help maintain their living standards and we were on less than a £ an hour or £40 a week for a skilled person . Labour are spend today pay for it next week . Corbyn is poison and he was around even then the parasite. The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties . Believe me when I tell you Tories ruthless bas**rds but the Labour are just thick bas**rds who can't agree even with themselves .
So regarding my original question, I take it that the answer is a 'no' then.
-
As they say across the pond in America
GO Susan GO > GO Susan GO
-
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week .
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
Yes I was there and I was getting a pay rise every week due the currency being devalued and to compensate everyone just to help maintain their living standards and we were on less than a £ an hour or £40 a week for a skilled person . Labour are spend today pay for it next week . Corbyn is poison and he was around even then the parasite. The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties . Believe me when I tell you Tories ruthless bas**rds but the Labour are just thick bas**rds who can't agree even with themselves .
Told you - madder than mad mick - and that is very mad indeed. And as they also say in America #alternatefacts
The interest rate isn't 0.25% - it is 2.7% and rising.
The national debt was £960 billion when the Tories took power in 2010. Now after 7 years of austerity it has risen to £1.8 trillion and is rising at £5000 a second.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
The NHS had already failed in its waiting targets before the crises of last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/nhs-surgery-target-operations-cancelled-simon-stevens
And you are banging on about the 1970's. Wake up this is 2017. This is the most radical manifesto since 1945 - and what happened then.
Oh and Corbyn was first elected as an MP in 1983.
-
Labour currently polling at 33%, a 9% rise from when the election was called, if the Tory vote share drops to 40% it will be a 15% swing and we'll see a hung parliament. Corbyn only needs a 19% swing to deliver a majority.
The Tories vote share in the local elections was 38% - 10% lower than what they were polling and in majority of seats where they have a majority.
A foregone conclusion this election is not.
One poll today had Labour at 33% another had 29%. Probably best to use the polling average (https://britainelects.com/polling/polling-averages) to avoid cherry-picking.
Labour currently stands at an average of 30.1%, up from 26.2% when the GE was called on 18/04. Conservatives stand at 47%, up from 42.3% on 18/04.
Conservative lead was +16.1 then, and it's now +16.9. So while it's true that public opinion of Labour has improved but not at the expense of the Conservatives. Meanwhile support for UKIP (especially), LDs and Greens has dropped noticeably. There's no real indication that the Conservatives are catchable, just that the electorate are consolidating behind the big two.
-
One party has announced lots the other hasn't even started yet...
It's same old labour, lots of ideas that they can't afford. Some are good, more nhs funding, tuition fee write offs etc. Some are terrible, public ownership of companies which has worked amazingly in the past (not) and high anti business policies. That will cost the economy and cost jobs.
-
After the polls and the media and all the experts were saying brexit would not happen > but it did
Then the exact same near enough was said about Clinton getting in and trump not getting in > and trump did
I will not belive no more polls or what the media predict or whatever the experts say > as nobody can predict how the British will vote on the day,and only a fool will tell them how to vote.
-
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week .
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
Yes I was there and I was getting a pay rise every week due the currency being devalued and to compensate everyone just to help maintain their living standards and we were on less than a £ an hour or £40 a week for a skilled person . Labour are spend today pay for it next week . Corbyn is poison and he was around even then the parasite. The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties . Believe me when I tell you Tories ruthless bas**rds but the Labour are just thick bas**rds who can't agree even with themselves .
Told you - madder than mad mick - and that is very mad indeed. And as they also say in America #alternatefacts
The interest rate isn't 0.25% - it is 2.7% and rising.
The national debt was £960 billion when the Tories took power in 2010. Now after 7 years of austerity it has risen to £1.8 trillion and is rising at £5000 a second.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
The NHS had already failed in its waiting targets before the crises of last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/nhs-surgery-target-operations-cancelled-simon-stevens
And you are banging on about the 1970's. Wake up this is 2017. This is the most radical manifesto since 1945 - and what happened then.
Oh and Corbyn was first elected as an MP in 1983.
His political career began when he was elected to Haringey Council in 1974; he later became Secretary of Hornsey Constituency Labour Party, and continued in both roles until he entered the House of Commons as MP for Islington North. He was a party member 1974!! I didn't say him being an mp ?
-
The Tories will win (again) and look after their own (again) and people will still fall for their bullshit (again).
-
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week .
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
Yes I was there and I was getting a pay rise every week due the currency being devalued and to compensate everyone just to help maintain their living standards and we were on less than a £ an hour or £40 a week for a skilled person . Labour are spend today pay for it next week . Corbyn is poison and he was around even then the parasite. The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties . Believe me when I tell you Tories ruthless bas**rds but the Labour are just thick bas**rds who can't agree even with themselves .
Told you - madder than mad mick - and that is very mad indeed. And as they also say in America #alternatefacts
The interest rate isn't 0.25% - it is 2.7% and rising.
The national debt was £960 billion when the Tories took power in 2010. Now after 7 years of austerity it has risen to £1.8 trillion and is rising at £5000 a second.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
The NHS had already failed in its waiting targets before the crises of last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/nhs-surgery-target-operations-cancelled-simon-stevens
And you are banging on about the 1970's. Wake up this is 2017. This is the most radical manifesto since 1945 - and what happened then.
Oh and Corbyn was first elected as an MP in 1983.
His political career began when he was elected to Haringey Council in 1974; he later became Secretary of Hornsey Constituency Labour Party, and continued in both roles until he entered the House of Commons as MP for Islington North. He was a party member 1974!! I didn't say him being an mp ?
Game set match > mrs abbott
-
The Tories will win (again) and look after their own (again) and people will still fall for their bullshit (again).
You are absolutely correct but better the devil you know .I doubt if things were going well for people they'd think about social issues . The Labour part are socialists but Corbyn is Marxist and this is bad news for the country . I don't want Tories in but this is that serious for everyone. Corbyn is poison .
-
For she is a jolly good fellow ,for she is a jolly good fellow
so say all of us .
She= Susan
-
For she is a jolly good fellow ,for she is a jolly good fellow
so say all of us .
She= Susan
It's what you want here from the opposition when the alternatives is Tory that there can be an alternate way and they will furnish the good life the Tories have denied us all .But !!!
Jeremy Corbyn is anti-British and a friend to terrorists, writes LEO MCKINSTRY
JEREMY CORBYN is often seen as a laughable but harmless clown. But nothing could be further from the truth. In reality he is the most loathsome man ever to have led a major party in the history of British democracy.
The politician who aspires to be the next Labour Prime Minister raises genuine concerns over our national security and integrity.
In his long, unedifying career filled with loathing for his own country, he has been a cheerleader for terrorism at home and Marxist revolutions abroad. Posing as a peace campaigner, he has spent years backing our enemies while seeking to undermine our defences.
Nothing exemplifies his vile politics more graphically than his support for murderous Irish Republicanism. For decades Corbyn was an open sympathiser with the Provisional IRA as it waged its bloody campaign against us.
-
Glad you pointed out corbyns friendship with the ira and other terrorist groups , give it a score of years and he be holding hands with a former isis leader .
How can anyone vote for Labour knowing who corbyn is happy to share a bed with.
I just don't understand why whoever in the Labour Party can't see that while corbyn is at the helm of Labour they are losing many many voters.
Gives me the impression that the Labour Party can't see infront of their own nose .
For sure the conservatives have their issues but they seem to be all about their policy's ,not that there is untold nut jobs within their ranks .
-
Glad you pointed out corbyns friendship with the ira and other terrorist groups , give it a score of years and he be holding hands with a former isis leader .
How can anyone vote for Labour knowing who corbyn is happy to share a bed with.
I just don't understand why whoever in the Labour Party can't see that while corbyn is at the helm of Labour they are losing many many voters.
Gives me the impression that the Labour Party can't see infront of their own nose .
For sure the conservatives have their issues but they seem to be all about their policy's ,not that there is untold nut jobs within their ranks .
Remember 170 MPs refused to join him but were persuaded to not resign. They knew what he is and still do. His beliefs are solid and if he gets in power everyone will see what hatred for the establishment really is .
-
Christ if this was in America you just know that the opposition party to corbyn would go public with corbyns darker side of his make up.
-
We are reasonably rich country on the edge of a major shift in its direction , but it's always been the Tories who have attracted the jobs and steered this country to Low interest rate of 0.25% compare this to 15-17% of the 70s with high-per inflation in double figures and a 3 day week .
Do you actually have any figures to prove this?
If so, why not choose to compare the 10-16% interest rates under the Thatcher gov't with <6% under Blair?
Attracted jobs you say? Why not mention Conservative gov'ts from 1979-1997 presiding over the UK's highest unemploment figures post war?
Yes I was there and I was getting a pay rise every week due the currency being devalued and to compensate everyone just to help maintain their living standards and we were on less than a £ an hour or £40 a week for a skilled person . Labour are spend today pay for it next week . Corbyn is poison and he was around even then the parasite. The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties . Believe me when I tell you Tories ruthless bas**rds but the Labour are just thick bas**rds who can't agree even with themselves .
Told you - madder than mad mick - and that is very mad indeed. And as they also say in America #alternatefacts
The interest rate isn't 0.25% - it is 2.7% and rising.
The national debt was £960 billion when the Tories took power in 2010. Now after 7 years of austerity it has risen to £1.8 trillion and is rising at £5000 a second.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
The NHS had already failed in its waiting targets before the crises of last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/nhs-surgery-target-operations-cancelled-simon-stevens
And you are banging on about the 1970's. Wake up this is 2017. This is the most radical manifesto since 1945 - and what happened then.
Oh and Corbyn was first elected as an MP in 1983.
His political career began when he was elected to Haringey Council in 1974; he later became Secretary of Hornsey Constituency Labour Party, and continued in both roles until he entered the House of Commons as MP for Islington North. He was a party member 1974!! I didn't say him being an mp ?
Game set match > mrs abbott
You mean the mad person who says in her very first load of drivel that the three day week was under Labour and not the Tories??
-
One party has announced lots the other hasn't even started yet...
It's same old labour, lots of ideas that they can't afford. Some are good, more nhs funding, tuition fee write offs etc. Some are terrible, public ownership of companies which has worked amazingly in the past (not) and high anti business policies. That will cost the economy and cost jobs.
If that's true, why have the Tories stopped the Office Of Budget Responsibility from commenting on the Labour figures? Surely having an official public agency confirm this assertion would only be to the Tories benefit and Labour's disadvantage..?
-
The price of Bread and Milk was set by the government because of import duties .
Really? When was this, because I can find no evidence to support this whatsoever.
-
Glynn how do you and others stand that mr corbyn is in the same bed as the ira and other know terrorist group or groups .
Surely this must worry you and others somewhat or is it a case of turning a blind eye to how whatever what terrorist group has got its hands dirty.
-
Thatcher, a Tory, was hardly whiter than white was she?
https://muftah.org/margaret-thatcher-her-dictator-friends/#.WRvjxJB4WrU
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
-
Why are Tory voters so blind to the FACTS, the major ones being:
7 years of austerity hasn't worked (national debt to GDP is higher than in 2010)
inflation is at 2.7% (.7% above the Bank of england target)
interest rates are shite
the £ is shite
the NHS is facing a "humanitarian crisis"
the number of classes teaching 36 or more kids has trebled in the last 5 years
99% of schools will see funding cuts over the next 3 years
there are fewer police officers than there were in the late 1990's
benefits for the disabled cut, whilst those over £45k get a tax break
And you get people saying, "better the devil you know"? Wtf? Look back at what corbyn has stood for and the types of bills he has consistently voted for his whole career?
Now look at May, the woman who just this week said people can "work their way out of poverty" - yeah, in the same way a drowning man can swim his way out of trouble.
-
It's same old labour, lots of ideas that they can't afford. Some are good, more nhs funding, tuition fee write offs etc. Some are terrible, public ownership of companies which has worked amazingly in the past (not) and high anti business policies. That will cost the economy and cost jobs.
The east coast mainline brought in several million in profit (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/01/east-coast-rail-line-returns-to-private-hands) under public ownership. When done correctly, public ownership can generate a lot of money for the treasury.
And are you also seriously suggesting the economy over the last 7 years has improved? Lower unemployment is the only shining light for the tories, but even that is undermined by a massive % of the workforce that are now on 0 hour contracts or have gone into self-employment, which harmfully lowers national insurance contributions and tax revenue for the treasury.
Edit:
Just been on the Conservatives website. Has anyone noticed the amount of waffling and lack of figures on nearly every aspect of their manifesto? "We will build more houses" - how many Theresa? "We will give more money to the NHS"? Yeah, how much Theresa? "We will employ more police officers" - HOW f**kING MANY THERESA?
-
SORRY rob but I look at the numbers first (no surprise). Labour costings will be a disaster. Companies will cut investment, will move offshore and will cut jobs. If you want pm me and I'll explain what I mean with some context that I can't do in public.
Don't disagree that some Tory policies aren't the best nor do I disagree that there are issues in the nhs etc. But how do we get past these issues? With difficulty. The population is ageing the economy must change and sadly private healthcare to an extent probably has to play a part. I have private healthcare, tax it and I'll cancel it and burden the nhs a little more. There should be some strong legislation on that though such as banning the use of nhs hospitals by nhs doctors working privately at weekends when they complain they don't like changing shift patterns.
Minimum wage. Yes it has 96 increase but not so fast, it will just lead to increasing inflation. Inflation was always to increase this year given brexit and decreasing value of the pound.
Student loans. Torn on this. IT will make me a fair bit better off a month so happy there. But should I benefit as a graduate qualified and working? Probably not. I should pay back given I have seen benefit from it though I would scrap the interest.
Tories will win it on brexit though. Just far stronger in that area after that well they'll have to perform or it becomes a Churchill scenario. Get through a tricky time then scrapped.
-
It's same old labour, lots of ideas that they can't afford. Some are good, more nhs funding, tuition fee write offs etc. Some are terrible, public ownership of companies which has worked amazingly in the past (not) and high anti business policies. That will cost the economy and cost jobs.
The east coast mainline brought in several million in profit (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/01/east-coast-rail-line-returns-to-private-hands) under public ownership. When done correctly, public ownership can generate a lot of money for the treasury.
And are you also seriously suggesting the economy over the last 7 years has improved? Lower unemployment is the only shining light for the tories, but even that is undermined by a massive % of the workforce that are now on 0 hour contracts or have gone into self-employment, which harmfully lowers national insurance contributions and tax revenue for the treasury.
Edit:
Just been on the Conservatives website. Has anyone noticed the amount of waffling and lack of figures on nearly every aspect of their manifesto? "We will build more houses" - how many Theresa? "We will give more money to the NHS"? Yeah, how much Theresa? "We will employ more police officers" - HOW f**kING MANY THERESA?
I don't know the answer but what was the value generated from east coast versus cost of the franchise and investment in infrastructure?
-
Thatcher, a Tory, was hardly whiter than white was she?
https://muftah.org/margaret-thatcher-her-dictator-friends/#.WRvjxJB4WrU
Quite a good back hand was that filo ,and it gives me more to think about .
-
Glynn how do you and others stand that mr corbyn is in the same bed as the ira and other know terrorist group or groups .
Surely this must worry you and others somewhat or is it a case of turning a blind eye to how whatever what terrorist group has got its hands dirty.
Corbyn argued that the IRA should be talked to. Which is exactly what Thatcher, Major and Blair actually did. The resultatant peace accord that everybody could agree on speaks for itself, I'd have thought. So was Corbyn wrong? Or do you know of anything that Corbyn has said to support any acts of terrorism?
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
-
Tories will win it on brexit though. Just far stronger in that area after that well they'll have to perform or it becomes a Churchill scenario. Get through a tricky time then scrapped.
How can they be stronger on something they have said absolutely NOTHING about? They won't even tell Parliament what their plans or expectations are; they certainly haven't told the electorate!
Then they have the barefaced cheek to call this a 'Brexit' election!
-
Glynn how do you and others stand that mr corbyn is in the same bed as the ira and other know terrorist group or groups .
Surely this must worry you and others somewhat or is it a case of turning a blind eye to how whatever what terrorist group has got its hands dirty.
Corbyn argued that the IRA should be talked to. Which is exactly what Thatcher, Major and Blair actually did. The resultatant peace accord that everybody could agree on speaks for itself, I'd have thought. So was Corbyn wrong? Or do you know of anything that Corbyn has said to support any acts of terrorism?
Good points Glynn but thing is thatcher is dead and now gone as corbyn is today and on my flat tv screen all day > and most important i just don't like him as he is not my cup of tea and that's before I even take on board what policy's he has.
He has some good ideas that is for sure ,but my issue with him and would not want him stood next to me in a trench ifvthat day ever came.
-
Does anybody know which cupboard they've locked Boris in? lol
-
Does anybody know which cupboard they've locked Boris in? lol
The one next to Jeremy Hunt I think
-
Does anybody know which cupboard they've locked Boris in? lol
The one next to Jeremy Hunt I think
He actually surfaced...about three days after the NHS hacking instead of on the day though.
-
Does anybody know which cupboard they've locked Boris in? lol
One strength that I do have which ,I have built up over the years and has rarely let me down to date
is my judgement of character .
I recall sitting in a pub when that one legged runner for SA was hitting the news and eveyone was all over him due to his one leg missing.
After about a few weeks of seeing him on tv etc etc I made a comment about him been a wrong'ern
and had to put it down to my judgement of character or my gutt fealing when all in the pub questioned me.
Few years down the line and the one legged fcuker is slopping out.
Like I said my judgement on face value or character has kept me in good stead .
-
Does anybody know which cupboard they've locked Boris in? lol
The one next to Jeremy Hunt I think
Can never understand why he was not in front of the media doing the job that he is paid to do.
Should have been de commissioned and a more able body given the duty to serve the public.
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
-
Jeremy Hunt,is it just me or do others on this board think he has purposefully misspelled his surname 😜
-
The rise in tax rates will just make individuals and companies consider their tax residence status. As I understand it, the treasury takes more in corporate tax revenues now than it did when the rate was 30%...
I've worked in tax for over a decade and I'd say the environment in which companies operate now is far more open, I see less tax avoidance because the UK is a very competitive country to do business in. Increase the rate, and you'll increase avoidance. HMRC don't have the manpower to deal with avoidance as it stands now, I doubt they could cope in their current structures if tax rates were to increase significantly.
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
That's a bit of a jump, going from 'profitmaking company' to 'redundancies'. You make it sound like they'd be going to the wall rather than making money.
-
Since you mention them two words tax and avoidance Jenny young lady.
I pay 36% on my monthly wage from my first job.
Whenever I take a second job or break a certain amount of overtime I my tax rate hits over 40%.
Had my tax return information during 1st week in April and had untill end of April to return all information required.
Turns out I have to pay back 12990kr back to tax man that's £1300
and I will get two paying in slips split down the middle ,one to be paid in September and final balance to be paid in October .
If you don't pay it for whatever reason they will attach it straight to your wages and take it out there and then.
They don't fcuk about with the collection of tax over here .
Also they set up the paying of your tv leicence via your tax assement each year.
You miss a doctors appointment and you will get billed £32 for the pleasure ,if you fail to pay that the debt gets taken over by inkasso who will then chase the payment with a huge increase .inkasso will allways get the full payment plus their add ons.
-
Glynn how do you and others stand that mr corbyn is in the same bed as the ira and other know terrorist group or groups .
Surely this must worry you and others somewhat or is it a case of turning a blind eye to how whatever what terrorist group has got its hands dirty.
Negotiating with the IRA didn't seem to worry Margaret Thatcher - why would it worry me?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
I am more worried about people like you who would prefer that the violence in Northern Ireland continued than I am about people who wanted to stop it.
-
Since you mention them two words tax and avoidance Jenny young lady.
I pay 36% on my monthly wage from my first job.
Whenever I take a second job or break a certain amount of overtime I my tax rate hits over 40%.
Had my tax return information during 1st week in April and had untill end of April to return all information required.
Turns out I have to pay back 12990kr back to tax man that's £1300
and I will get two paying in slips split down the middle ,one to be paid in September and final balance to be paid in October .
If you don't pay it for whatever reason they will attach it straight to your wages and take it out there and then.
They don't fcuk about with the collection of tax over here .
Also they set up the paying of your tv leicence via your tax assement each year.
You miss a doctors appointment and you will get billed £32 for the pleasure ,if you fail to pay that the debt gets taken over by inkasso who will then chase the payment with a huge increase .inkasso will allways get the full payment plus their add ons.
Not sure what that has to do with the price of fish... But yeah. Interesting story.
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
That's a bit of a jump, going from 'profitmaking company' to 'redundancies'. You make it sound like they'd be going to the wall rather than making money.
Surely even you know that smaller profits = less available money to reinvest in the Company.
-
I don't either but just wanted to get it off me chest .
Through out the year any tax office in oslo is a quite stress less place and ques and time waiting to be served are quite pleasent .
But my god during the month of April -may it goes up 1000 fold.
You be sat waiting 2 hours to get served while your number comes up and every tax office looks like it's a different country if you get my just.
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
That's a bit of a jump, going from 'profitmaking company' to 'redundancies'. You make it sound like they'd be going to the wall rather than making money.
Surely even you know that smaller profits = less available money to reinvest in the Company.
Or more likely smaller dividends. Because I believe (and no doubt Jenny can confirm one way or the other), Corporation Tax is levied after reinvestment. ie reinvestment isn't taxed.
-
Everyone knows what the Tories will do:
Privatise (decimate) the NHS
Cut Education funding
Abolish workers rights
Cut disability welfare
Bring back fox hunting
I genuinely have no idea how anyone with a social conscience can vote for them!!
-
Everyone knows what the Tories will do:
Privatise (decimate) the NHS
Cut Education funding
Abolish workers rights
Cut disability welfare
Bring back fox hunting
I genuinely have no idea how anyone with a social conscience can vote for them!!
Brainwashed by the Tory controlled media
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
That's a bit of a jump, going from 'profitmaking company' to 'redundancies'. You make it sound like they'd be going to the wall rather than making money.
Surely even you know that smaller profits = less available money to reinvest in the Company.
Or more likely smaller dividends. Because I believe (and no doubt Jenny can confirm one way or the other), Corporation Tax is levied after reinvestment. ie reinvestment isn't taxed.
Thanks for that response, you have just won me a fiver.
When I posted I bet my mate at work £5 that you would post something along those lines.
You do seem to have a problem with successful business people making money don't you.
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
That's a bit of a jump, going from 'profitmaking company' to 'redundancies'. You make it sound like they'd be going to the wall rather than making money.
Surely even you know that smaller profits = less available money to reinvest in the Company.
Or more likely smaller dividends. Because I believe (and no doubt Jenny can confirm one way or the other), Corporation Tax is levied after reinvestment. ie reinvestment isn't taxed.
Thanks for that response, you have just won me a fiver.
When I posted I bet my mate at work £5 that you would post something along those lines.
You do seem to have a problem with successful business people making money don't you.
No, because raising Corporation Tax doesn't stop anybody making a profit.
-
Of course not, it does mean paying money in tax though that would have been additional profit overall.
Less money retained in the business means less reinvestment.
I have paid plenty of Corporation tax in the past.
-
Everyone knows what the Tories will do:
Privatise (decimate) the NHS
Cut Education funding
Abolish workers rights
Cut disability welfare
Bring back fox hunting
I genuinely have no idea how anyone with a social conscience can vote for them!!
Unfortunately I think you're spot on mate. People would rather believe the bile that they're fed by the Daily Mail than find anything out for themselves.
Brainwashed by the Tory controlled media
-
Of course other papers don't have a bias to the Labour set up.
-
Of course other papers don't have a bias to the Labour set up.
I didn't say that they don't - but if people vote for a party based on what they read in the papers then its a very sad state of affairs.
-
Well my guess is that it may be a case both ways mate.
-
Of course other papers don't have a bias to the Labour set up.
I didn't say that they don't - but if people vote for a party based on what they read in the papers then its a very sad state of affairs.
Get the thing about not taking any notice of whatever newspaper spies out as it's obvious which paper
is backing what party .
I like to go on first impressions to help my choice and if I was going to be get fcuked over by whoever runs the country > it be a lot more better to take from a well dressed set of fcukers all from the same page > than a set of mix and match fcukers who are many different pages .
That's why Labour would never get my vote
-
The rise in tax rates will just make individuals and companies consider their tax residence status. As I understand it, the treasury takes more in corporate tax revenues now than it did when the rate was 30%...
I've worked in tax for over a decade and I'd say the environment in which companies operate now is far more open, I see less tax avoidance because the UK is a very competitive country to do business in. Increase the rate, and you'll increase avoidance. HMRC don't have the manpower to deal with avoidance as it stands now, I doubt they could cope in their current structures if tax rates were to increase significantly.
This is a prime example of what continues to happen under the Tories, which makes me very skeptical when you suggest there is less tax avoidance now:
Atos, G4S paid no corporation tax last year despite carrying out £2billion of taxpayer-funded work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10442231/Atos-G4S-paid-no-corporation-tax-last-year-despite-carrying-out-2billion-of-taxpayer-funded-work.html)
-
Raising Corporation tax to 26% is a smart move by Corbyn.
Simply, it will reduce investment by Companies in the uk.
It is a tax hike that will damage growth and affect where big businesses choose to locate.
Outcome, potential loss of jobs and further hardship on small businesses.
Choose where they locate? Given that that level of Corporatioon Tax is still lower than most first world countries, you're telling us they're all going to rush to countries with higher Corporation Tax than us?
Perhaps they'll all go to the US, where it's about twice the rate of ours.
I take it that you don't care that lower nett profits will result in lack of reinvestment in business meaning lower possible pay increases and possible redundancies.
That's a bit of a jump, going from 'profitmaking company' to 'redundancies'. You make it sound like they'd be going to the wall rather than making money.
Surely even you know that smaller profits = less available money to reinvest in the Company.
Or more likely smaller dividends. Because I believe (and no doubt Jenny can confirm one way or the other), Corporation Tax is levied after reinvestment. ie reinvestment isn't taxed.
Thanks for that response, you have just won me a fiver.
When I posted I bet my mate at work £5 that you would post something along those lines.
You do seem to have a problem with successful business people making money don't you.
No, because raising Corporation Tax doesn't stop anybody making a profit.
It doesn't stop them making a profit, but it gives them less money to put back into the business.
Corp tax is calculated on profits before tax and dividends, therefore, say I had a company and it made £10,000,000 taxable profits, under the current regime I would pay £1,900,000 tax. Under labours proposals, I would pay £2,600,000 tax. That is £700,000 that I wouldn't be able to reinvest in the business.
My profit after tax drops from £8.1m to £7.4m.
When I started working in tax the CT rate was 30%, it was anti-competitive and most of the planning was around companies being off-shored - for example, by moving your management and control to Ireland cut that rate for trading companies to 12.5%, its a massive difference and why Ireland has always been seen as a good place for business (google, starbucks, facebook). Netherlands was also a place where many business were tax resident because their rate was lower than the UK.
And then there has been a shift, as the UK has become more and more competitive companies have come back onshore, it has been good for tax revenues, because 19% of something is better than 30% of nothing. It has also been good for employment.
I am not saying large scale tax avoidance doesn't still exist because it clearly does, but there is less offshoring, because it isn't as attractive anymore.
By increasing tax rates you put strain on businesses - I now work in tax in a retailer. Retailers are squeezed to high hell due to excessive business rates, national minimum/national living wage, employers NI contributions etc etc Over the past few years all of these things have increased, retail isn't massively high margin so as lots of costs go up, you have to find a way to bring your cost base down - usually via employing less people or paying them as low as possible and employing people on zero hours. Or putting prices up, which obviously impacts the economy and the country as a whole.
As a consumer, I don't want to see my spending habits increase due to price rises, but I can almost guarantee that this will happen if CT rates go up. The costs just get passed on to the consumer...
-
Thanks for that Jenny, I was wrong about my understanding about what the description of taxable profits includes.
-
Well that put that one to bed Jenny.
-
Well that put that one to bed Jenny.
BUT labour will still think taxing higher is the way forward, and it's obviously not.
-
There appears to be some mythology here that we wont be paying tax under the Tories. The total tax burden that we all pay, VAT, car tax, council tax, etc has risen under this government to 35% of our income - the highest it has been since 1986. It is set to rise to 37%.
But at least people like Mike Ashley and Richard Branson get to keep more of their money eh - how nice of the rest of us to pay for it.
https://www.ft.com/content/873bc90b-3ec5-379a-a0c0-08fe77196bb6
and these taxes have been shown to hit the poorest the hardest:
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_tax_burden_hits_the_poorest_hardest
-
"There seems to be some mythology here that we wont be paying tax under the Tories".
Really?
LOL.
-
Well that put that one to bed Jenny.
BUT labour will still think taxing higher is the way forward, and it's obviously not.
It's the oldest Tory trick in the book; convincing the masses they will reduce tax and they'll be more money in all of our pockets. But that's not true is it? Income tax may come down (saving the super wealthy thousands, if not millions, a year) but VAT goes up, fuel duty slowly creeps up, council tax creeps up, f**king bedroom tax is introduced, and does everyone remember the "pasty tax"? Basically any non-income related taxes that are paid for by all. There's even talk of the so called "dementia tax" being introduced under a Tory government (introduced during Dementia Awareness week, of all weeks!)
-
Have the Tories said they will reduce tax for the masses in their manifesto?
-
Well after todays release of the Tory manifesto, anyone who can vote for that load of crap should be certified insane!
-
Labour will plant a money tree? It doesn't add up to me. Create more jobs but tax those who create them.
You're a company you can pay a whack of tax here but be outside the eu or pay much less in Ireland with eu access - madness.
As for taxing those at 80k much more, 80k is not in some cases a huge amount of money. Justify that to a family in London with one working person. I tend to think the tax level may be too low but so is 80k.
On nationalisation, was it really any good before privatisation, really?
The key point for me is it just doesn't add up, the costings on the face of it seem to contradict a little. Devil in the detail of course.
It seems over the years Labour have been more trustworthy with our finances than the Tories
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
Now that blog has astounded me and blown many a theory out of the water . This should have a one off special TV programme to blow this myth out of the water once and for all .
-
Corbin is picking his venues very well too.
What better place to visit than a University when announcing banning tuition fees.
No wonder they were cheering him.
Yes a bit like May visiting the working class North East and then bussing in Tory activists to cheer her, all for the BBC Cameras, no locals were allowed anywhere near!
But don't forget that the Torys are also pledging to help the many as well.
Yes of course they are . I thought I better cut you some slack considering I watched as 2 cats played with you ( the mouse ) for what seemed like an eternity of a read.
Thought you were lucky that Billy Stubbs Tears had long given up the forum otherwise we would have lost days out of our lives .
Like all stats you did have 1/2 salient points that you weren't given the opportunity to develop thank God.
Goodness nearly forgot the fixtures come out next week. Incidentally I hope it wasn't you that thought the Whig Party and the Labour Party were one and the same.
Just a final point , life would be so much easier if politics was taught in our Secondary schools particularly Political History ; however neither of the 2 main political parties would trust our teachers and academics with that task unlike in other " modern " European countries where the very mention of Coalitions is NOT a dirty word . Most modern day democracies have long dispensed with a political system that lurches from one direction to the other with alarming alacrity and waste purporting to represent the electorate on often little more than 33% of the vote rarely ever delivering on manifesto promises .
My view our democracy is all but dead if indeed it ever really existed now left to the machinations of media barons, big business, foreign interference etc . The Brexit result and how that was brought about the final straw.
-
The Tories will win (again) and look after their own (again) and people will still fall for their bullshit (again).
Only with the costs of Brexit to shoulder too. It's like the British people are pushing an ox cart through a swamp whilst the water becomes deeper and the load becomes heavier.
This is not going to end well ....
-
SORRY rob but I look at the numbers first (no surprise). Labour costings will be a disaster. Companies will cut investment, will move offshore and will cut jobs. If you want pm me and I'll explain what I mean with some context that I can't do in public.
Don't disagree that some Tory policies aren't the best nor do I disagree that there are issues in the nhs etc. But how do we get past these issues? With difficulty. The population is ageing the economy must change and sadly private healthcare to an extent probably has to play a part. I have private healthcare, tax it and I'll cancel it and burden the nhs a little more. There should be some strong legislation on that though such as banning the use of nhs hospitals by nhs doctors working privately at weekends when they complain they don't like changing shift patterns.
Minimum wage. Yes it has 96 increase but not so fast, it will just lead to increasing inflation. Inflation was always to increase this year given brexit and decreasing value of the pound.
Student loans. Torn on this. IT will make me a fair bit better off a month so happy there. But should I benefit as a graduate qualified and working? Probably not. I should pay back given I have seen benefit from it though I would scrap the interest.
Tories will win it on brexit though. Just far stronger in that area after that well they'll have to perform or it becomes a Churchill scenario. Get through a tricky time then scrapped.
Andy have you done some number crunching on the potential costs of Brexit because that would be interesting - NO- ONE seems to think it pertinent to work out the effect of a crash out on WTO rules yet or have they certainly none that voted for it anyway
?
Most were unaware of the FULL ramifications of this cliff edge scenario especially the politicians. In fact most of the Labour Shadow cabinet have got past doing sums properly and as for the Tories they aren't half- arsed !
As for student loans , I have a daughter at uni and many of her friends don't have a problem with repaying reasonable tuition fees £ 6,7k p.a. but do object to repaying the Maintenance Loan aspect . The 2nd component is for living costs and we wouldn't expect anyone on Unemployment Benefit to repay their assistance I wonder what other people think about this ?
-
Of course other papers don't have a bias to the Labour set up.
Which ones compete with the Daily Mail, Express, The Sun and the Times. Against that lot and of course the BBC, Sky and Fox we have dum der dum The Mirror / Guardian & The Indy .
A bit like Chelsea v. Stockport County.
-
You missed out the Telegraph, Star and Metro, hoola
-
SORRY rob but I look at the numbers first (no surprise). Labour costings will be a disaster. Companies will cut investment, will move offshore and will cut jobs. If you want pm me and I'll explain what I mean with some context that I can't do in public.
Don't disagree that some Tory policies aren't the best nor do I disagree that there are issues in the nhs etc. But how do we get past these issues? With difficulty. The population is ageing the economy must change and sadly private healthcare to an extent probably has to play a part. I have private healthcare, tax it and I'll cancel it and burden the nhs a little more. There should be some strong legislation on that though such as banning the use of nhs hospitals by nhs doctors working privately at weekends when they complain they don't like changing shift patterns.
Minimum wage. Yes it has 96 increase but not so fast, it will just lead to increasing inflation. Inflation was always to increase this year given brexit and decreasing value of the pound.
Student loans. Torn on this. IT will make me a fair bit better off a month so happy there. But should I benefit as a graduate qualified and working? Probably not. I should pay back given I have seen benefit from it though I would scrap the interest.
Tories will win it on brexit though. Just far stronger in that area after that well they'll have to perform or it becomes a Churchill scenario. Get through a tricky time then scrapped.
Andy have you done some number crunching on the potential costs of Brexit because that would be interesting - NO- ONE seems to think it pertinent to work out the effect of a crash out on WTO rules yet or have they certainly none that voted for it anyway
?
Most were unaware of the FULL ramifications of this cliff edge scenario especially the politicians. In fact most of the Labour Shadow cabinet have got past doing sums properly and as for the Tories they aren't half- arsed !
I've known about it from Day One. But got shouted down on here because despite knowing it, apparently I didn't know 'what is going to happen'. Yet I know that if we leave the Single Market and the Customs Union - which is what the Tories seem to be saying - this IS what will happen. Customs Declarations and all the red tape associated with 'Free' trade outside of a Customs Union will be imposed, whereas some 'experts' on here seem to think that negotiating a 'Free' trade agreement with another country will magically make all these requirements disappear. Fools.
-
Most of the people i know who voted to leave the EU did so in the hope of us stopping mass immigration into the UK.
It was as though that was the major reason for leaving.
Many of them have admitted to me since that they had not realised the other difficulties that will very obviously happen after BREXIT.
-
I was just about to post something on the exact same lines DRFChound.
by the way check the milk thread out
-
Maybe it was age related. I voted to leave because the Common Market that I had voted into was nothing like what the EU was becoming.
Immigration was only part of my thinking,not the main one. I am retired though so not worrying rightly or wrongly about my job being pinched by someone from another country.
-
I voted to leave without really knowing if it was the right thing or not. Over the past year, seeing the reaction of the remain voters and how our European cousins are desperate to make an example of us, I'm more comfortable with the way I voted.
Immigration wasn't a great factor for me, although I do have some concerns about it. Moreover it was that the free market steam train seems to be leaving a trail of victims behind it and nobody in the EU seemed to give a shit.
Saying that, it could still be the worst thing that we've ever done...
-
The way the non remain voters have carried on has really got on my tits hence why I have such bad fealings towrads that Gina miller pig.
-
Here's how i see it. All the parties will continue giving money away to other countries while it's people struggle as does the nhs etc. I'm not against helping anybody in need but when you just decide 'we are going to give x amount even if there isn't a valid cause to help' then it's plain stupidity.
Whoever gets in power will continue this-why?. Because a lot of it is to kind of influence emerging nations to deal with us over others it isn't just to help. The problem is the government spouts off about how Labour left a mess, no money left in the coffers etc, etc. This government has taken borrowing to 200% over what's actually coming in coming in. In the second world war it was 100% over what was coming in do you see the trouble they have got the younger generation in?
They have been borrowing to maintain things rather than borrowing to improve things. To get business going again, to make sure people have money to spend. They need to build things up not run them down and try to run everything at economy level. They will give money to other countries, they will build a high speed train network that will mainly benefit the south while old people who just when they reach a time in life where they feel vulnerable they get moved from pillar to post.
The new idea of giving people a year off to care for a relative is good in principle but is really just a way to save on them spending a penny on the older person who has earned respect and dignity and probably paid more than enough tax in.
I don't like how at the minute the 'us and them' dividing isn't this time the immigrants or the unemployed it's pitting young against old this time.
At a time when respect for older people in my opinion is at an all-time low they tell the young person in and roundabout way 'We can't help you because the old people are getting your money'!.
This dividing has been going on since the Tories took over. They lied to get in a prime minister who throughout her tenure as an mp in various jobs has failed-immigration numbers being the stand out-tens of thousands would come in when really she hasn't a clue how many have come in but it's in the millions.
They pontificate about how they have more in work than before but at what cost?. People having to use food banks who work is shameful. People might have jobs but not the wages to live comfortably. They are taking this country back to the Victorian ages.
Any young people on here your age range don't seem to vote as much as the older or middle generation put that right!.
I won't tell you who to vote for because everybody makes their own decision and the choices don't look great. Vote tory and you will get more lies where they won't do what they say they will. They will destroy the nhs until there is nothing left. They will pay a big amount to come out of the EU when that money could be used to give young people a hand in the tricky period between leaving school and working. They will humiliate your elderly grandparents by making them jump through hoops to get care they are entitled to. If you need help and can't work they will again make you jump through hoops and take away what little pride you have left while you are on benefits. They will systematically destroy the system you know it's already started you might have noticed.
Labour the leader isn't the best but he is the nearest to a traditional labour leader for many years. They're idea is to borrow to grow the country rather than us all struggling. We have had six years of struggle is time for a change. Labour won't deliver on everything just like the tories won't but you won't get vindictive government that doesn't want to help it's own. Corbyn won't lead for a long time in my opinion so if you like Labour vote for the policies rather than the leader.
The Liberals as always a bit wishy washy and not really dealing with the major problems. They are concentrating on trying to win some of their vote back rather than thinking they can win. The leader again not the best not somebody you could see as prime minister really.
UKIP another party trying to get back some votes to try and get more than they-re token one mp in parliament. They have what look like good policies but everything seems to go back to just immigration with them when though too many coming in is a problem you do need good people going in and out of the country.
The rest to me are just also-rans who won't really factor. Whoever you are try and get your vote in this is just as important as the brexit vote in my opinion. Already May has made some terrible mistakes in dealing with the EU. Once friendly relations with Scotland and Wales are cooling. In my opinion it's time for a change of direction for me the tories will give us more of the same struggling. The future of the country lies in the younger votes hands if the tories are to be beaten as i'd like because i see nothing positive in the way they are going to go about things. A dementia tax have you ever heard anything so cruel in your life?. Believe me if they get back in the whole fabric of the country will turn for the worse. I respect those who disagree none of them will make everything wonderful but any but the tories for me would lead to fairer run country!.
-
Written by a true labour man, well done.
You are Corbyn and i claim my £5 prize.
-
I notice the Scottish Tories have said they are going to keep the Winter Fuel Allowances for Scottish pensioners - which they can do under devolution. So it seems as though May will be taking money from English pensioners - but giving it to Scottish ones! Enjoy voting for that.
I should keep your money if I were you hound - you might need it!
-
It doesnt look like i will be getting my winter fuel allowance but if it distributes it fairly to those who need it i am not too concerned.
-
You'll do for me Sammy!
-
Written by a true labour man, well done.
You are Corbyn and i claim my £5 prize.
Not really hound, in my time i have also voted liberal going by the policies labour are the winners. They are trying to tackle the main issues whereas the other parties are concentrating on a smaller group of issues so as not to cause confusion. The problem is unlike the tories think brexit isn't the only issue and i think concentrating mainly on that might cost them.
I'm not particularly impressed with Corbyn but maybe it's because i've seen so many liars i don't recognise somebody different. By the way if you vote Tory watch that five pound you've claimed you will get taxed plus some VAT-You might end with about a quid and twenty pence. :laugh:
-
Why would I get taxed on it and charged VAT ?
It amuses me somewhat that popular opinion at present is that Brexit is somehow the fault of the Tories.
It isn't of course, it is down to the public vote and the Government are charged with finding the best of what is available for the Nation when it finally comes around.
-
Why would I get taxed on it and charged VAT ?
It amuses me somewhat that popular opinion at present is that Brexit is somehow the fault of the Tories.
It isn't of course, it is down to the public vote and the Government are charged with finding the best of what is available for the Nation when it finally comes around.
unearned income, it's easier to go for the little man than their corporate friends
-
VAT ?
-
Anyway Filo, I am about as likely to declare it as you are putting your tips on your tax return.
-
VAT ?
Tories removed their previous manifesto pledge not to raise it. A suspicious person would say this is because they intend to raise it. Presumably you will tell us differently.
But they are going to cut corporation tax so you will be allright.
-
Anyway Filo, I am about as likely to declare it as you are putting your tips on your tax return.
Tips?
You've all on getting paid around here, never mind getting a tip 😀😀
-
Anyway Filo, I am about as likely to declare it as you are putting your tips on your tax return.
Tips?
You've all on getting paid around here, never mind getting a tip 😀😀
Maybe I should ring you when I need a taxi. I always give a small tip.
-
Glad you pointed out corbyns friendship with the ira and other terrorist groups , give it a score of years and he be holding hands with a former isis leader .
How can anyone vote for Labour knowing who corbyn is happy to share a bed with.
I just don't understand why whoever in the Labour Party can't see that while corbyn is at the helm of Labour they are losing many many voters.
Gives me the impression that the Labour Party can't see infront of their own nose .
For sure the conservatives have their issues but they seem to be all about their policy's ,not that there is untold nut jobs within their ranks .
Don't think Corbyn was ever a member of the IRA, unlie this conservative lady
http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4045346.IRA_Councillor_welcomed_back_to_Tory_bosom/
-
Anyway Filo, I am about as likely to declare it as you are putting your tips on your tax return.
Tips?
You've all on getting paid around here, never mind getting a tip 😀😀
Maybe I should ring you when I need a taxi. I always give a small tip.
I prefer large tips if there are any forthcoming 😀😀
-
VAT ?
Tories removed their previous manifesto pledge not to raise it. A suspicious person would say this is because they intend to raise it. Presumably you will tell us differently.
But they are going to cut corporation tax so you will be allright.
Read the question and what it relates to again FFS.
Nothing to do with raising or otherwise the VAT level.
Presumably you can understand then why I put VAT?
-
VAT ?
Tories removed their previous manifesto pledge not to raise it. A suspicious person would say this is because they intend to raise it. Presumably you will tell us differently.
But they are going to cut corporation tax so you will be allright.
Read the question and what it relates to again FFS.
Nothing to do with raising or otherwise the VAT level.
Presumably you can understand then why I put VAT?
Since when did require your permission to post an observation on here? What is factually incorrect in my post?
You need to wait until the Tories get back in until you control the internet and only allow postings you like on it.
-
Lol,
You have resigned yourself to a Tory win then.
I will have a word with my Auntie Teresa when they do then.
-
VAT ?
Tories removed their previous manifesto pledge not to raise it. A suspicious person would say this is because they intend to raise it. Presumably you will tell us differently.
But they are going to cut corporation tax so you will be allright.
The Tories usually say 'they have no plans' to do something unpopular. Then five minutes after they've been elected, they somehow manage to find some plans to do exactly whatever-it-is down the back of the sofa.
-
I have never voted before and I'm 44 AND NEVER BEEN INTRESTED IN POLITICS , as much as I think Jeremy Corbyn is dull I trust him and is for the people can he lead us into talks with Europe on the brexit vote yes he can the media play him down and make him look simple and plain I believe he his a man of his word and would die by it.
Theresa may I just don't trust her we have been under austerity under the Tories for the last 6 years and the national dept has increased, real people are suffering the only ones she seems to care about are the one with money and social care is a joke all you have to do is sign you house over to your kids or a charity if you have worked and lived in this country all your life old people should be looked after British or not maybe I have a heart , the national Dept will never get reduced we need to invest now in our kids so they have hope for the future
-
Going on the filo and his tips as a taxi driver ,that is shocking that anyone in the service trade or like minded jobs by the tax law require to pay tax on the tips they receive.
-
Going on the filo and his tips as a taxi driver ,that is shocking that anyone in the service trade or like minded jobs by the tax law require to pay tax on the tips they receive.
Why is it? It's not a gift, it's earned income.
-
Only if they declare it of course otherwise no one would know about it.
-
So I see Boris Johnson has today said the £350m from the EU is costed in the Tory manifesto (it isn't). This hot on the heels of Philip Hammond who got his HS2 sums disastrously wrong. Interesting that both of these gaffes haven't received anywhere near the level of coverage that Diane Abbott's did.
-
So I see Boris Johnson has today said the £350m from the EU is costed in the Tory manifesto (it isn't). This hot on the heels of Philip Hammond who got his HS2 sums disastrously wrong. Interesting that both of these gaffes haven't received anywhere near the level of coverage that Diane Abbott's did.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" and refused to identity as British. Diane Abbott or Wee Jimmy Krankie? Nice these pro EU'ers
-
What the f**k are you talking about?
-
What the f**k are you talking about?
Don't encourage him...
-
Jesus Christ, Theresa May's performance with Andrew Neil just now. She really is f**king rubbish, isn't she? This is the woman who's supposed to be negotiating the most important deal in our history soon.
-
Going on the filo and his tips as a taxi driver ,that is shocking that anyone in the service trade or like minded jobs by the tax law require to pay tax on the tips they receive.
Why is it? It's not a gift, it's earned income.
If I give some extra money to filo for driving his taxi from A to B it's because of the pleasent journey and he did not take longest route to point B .so as the giver I see it as a gift .
-
Going on the filo and his tips as a taxi driver ,that is shocking that anyone in the service trade or like minded jobs by the tax law require to pay tax on the tips they receive.
Why is it? It's not a gift, it's earned income.
If I give some extra money to filo for driving his taxi from A to B it's because of the pleasent journey and he did not take longest route to point B .so as the giver I see it as a gift .
The difference is that you are giving it to him because of a service he provided you. It'd only be a gift to a taxi driver if you went up to one and gave him money without using his taxi.
-
In other words Glynn when you put it that way ,it's another way that whatever government Tory Labour or lord such have the opportunity to TAX you.
There is not a big tipping culture in the U.K. ,but out here it is quite normall to tip people in the service trade .
I have seen both the good sides and bad sides to this in oslo.
I have worked with Scandinavian bar tenders that are all tips tips tips ,while any British bar staff have a different outlook and mind set.
For sure both cultures like a tip but many scandianavians will be happy to take tips for what's goes down in my book as shite service and having only a one track mind.
When my two lads make 20 years old I will push them into taking part time bar jobs in the hope it helps them to learn how to deal with people ,and I will have a word in their ears about been service minded.
I was working the bar one night with this noggy bar man and it was quite busy for a Monday night but not packed.the deal with the pub was that all bar staff share all tips at the end of the night which I enforced some years before.
On this Monday night a gent was in from America with about 15 of his work colleges and he left his card behind the bar to run a tab.(big mistake in my book but that's another issue).
They was in the pub for a good 6 hours as they all had drinks on the yanks tab .even put the American college football on for them on one of the tvs in the corner but with no sound as it would fcuk up the karaoke for other customers.
When it come to paying the bill I run every drink on the tab into till and gave him a bill that stated every item bought and how much.
My bill numbers were exactly matched what he had secretly noted down.
He went on to say how pleased he was payed the bill with a 3000kr tip which was £300 ,I was taken back and a tad embarrassed by the amount of the tip but the yank would not budge .
The noggy bar man then was all over the yank like a rash which really pissed me off as he had been useless all night as I was carrying him basically.
So after the yank signed for his bill I then bought 3 bottles of champagne out of the tips for the yank and his party and 'I had him over dude' in his words .
This meant that in the matter of one transaction the noggy bar man gained a £150 tip reduced to a £75 tip as quick as you could say 'noggy w**ker'
During the closing routine of checking all the stock in the bar and cleaning up etc etc the noggy bar man had wound me up that much about what I had done I had to give him a rabbit punch to wind him and sent him home which left me doing 3 hours extra work of stock checking and matching the numbers and cashing up and cleaning.
Don't quite know why I typed that shite but I feal better for it.
-
Glad you pointed out corbyns friendship with the ira and other terrorist groups , give it a score of years and he be holding hands with a former isis leader .
How can anyone vote for Labour knowing who corbyn is happy to share a bed with.
I just don't understand why whoever in the Labour Party can't see that while corbyn is at the helm of Labour they are losing many many voters.
Gives me the impression that the Labour Party can't see infront of their own nose .
For sure the conservatives have their issues but they seem to be all about their policy's ,not that there is untold nut jobs within their ranks .
He wanted peace in Ireland and has condemned all bombings (yes, even by the IRA). This is a man with A Gandhi Peace Award and a man who supported Mandela.
-
I'm not a Corbyn fan particularly but anyone who says he is an IRA sympathiser is either brainwashed or retarded.
-
Good god, ripped into tiny shreds, no wonder she refuses to debate with Corbyn!
https://youtu.be/QPzlFxYhR28
-
Good god, ripped into tiny shreds, no wonder she refuses to debate with Corbyn!
https://youtu.be/QPzlFxYhR28
Did she not have a good look in the mirror before she turned up for that interview ,as that black belt
she had on was pointless .
Wrong signals sent out to be seen wearing any red coloured clothing should have gone for whatever shade of blue.
As for the interview ,that was just as bad as her dress sense.
-
Good god, ripped into tiny shreds, no wonder she refuses to debate with Corbyn!
https://youtu.be/QPzlFxYhR28
Dear God, half an hour of incessant sloganeering and ignoring the questions. She'd never get away with it in a televised debate, that's why she won't do one - it'd expose her facade for what it is completely and to the widest audience of the campaign.
Mind you, it's a pity that when Neill was repeatedly asking her about the Dementis Tax cap U-turn four days after the manifesto was published that he didn't ask her whether this was an example of the strength and stability of government that she's been hectoring people to vote for..!