Jump to content

More Tory lies


aussieh

Recommended Posts

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

They can, but Corbyn's Labour are really, really, really bad at that sort of thing. They usually prefer to parrot slogans instead of doing the kind of effective, forensic opposition work you suggest.

 

Exactly.   That's why they would benefit from a joined up approach with the SNP.    Shame Corbyn has previously treated the SNP like ebola though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • The Mighty Thor

    1556

  • Victorian

    1431

  • JudyJudyJudy

    1354

  • Cade

    1157

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

shaun.lawson
Just now, Victorian said:

 

Exactly.   That's why they would benefit from a joined up approach with the SNP.    Shame Corbyn has previously treated the SNP like ebola though.

 

Indeed - which is just incredibly dumb. This won't go down well on here, but I've long believed all anti-Tory parties should unite as one bloc, make PR part of their manifesto, not stand against each other... and this would involve Labour treating the SNP like Merkel's CDU treats the CSU in Bavaria. 

 

Then once elected, PR would immediately be implemented - and the SNP granted a second referendum. Will never happen though; British politics are just way, way too tribal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Indeed - which is just incredibly dumb. This won't go down well on here, but I've long believed all anti-Tory parties should unite as one bloc, make PR part of their manifesto, not stand against each other... and this would involve Labour treating the SNP like Merkel's CDU treats the CSU in Bavaria. 

 

Then once elected, PR would immediately be implemented - and the SNP granted a second referendum. Will never happen though; British politics are just way, way too tribal.

 

Yep.   He took the more simple view that any cooperation the SNP would be unpopular.     The Lib Dems were half-nelsoned by Clegg into their having their little taste of glory and still have no clear political philosophy.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Exactly.   That's why they would benefit from a joined up approach with the SNP.    Shame Corbyn has previously treated the SNP like ebola though.

It doesn’t need to be joined_up.     If Labour have nothing to fear then they can call for the PMs resignation for lying to Parliament.

 

But if Labour are culpable as May has claimed, then step up the SNP who claim to be the real opposition in Westminster.  Or even the KibDems  

 

Either way if opposition parties do nothing, then they are part of the problem 

 

This to me is a perfect opportunity to see Govt held to account.

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Yep.   He took the more simple view that any cooperation the SNP would be unpopular.     The Lib Dems were half-nelsoned by Clegg into their having their little taste of glory and still have no clear political philosophy.    

 

Speaking of which:

 

DbIzyL0X4AEtrEl.jpg

 

And that is why I left The Joke Party in 2011 and will never, ever vote for them or support them again. :down: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Speaking of which:

 

DbIzyL0X4AEtrEl.jpg

 

And that is why I left The Joke Party in 2011 and will never, ever vote for them or support them again. :down: 

 

Says it all.    Knighthood for Danny Alexander though.    

 

:ears:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
5 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Nothing different from what I said above. 

 

The paranoia is off the scale with some folk  

 

Paranoid? 

 

I only asked you what the BBC would say? It hasn’t even made the news, the main headline is all about plastic drinking straws  lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
4 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Spacey - it would be nothing at all.    You are overdo-ing the paranoia.

 

Relax a bit - young people are human and do silly things.  If it was an SNP spud I would have no problem at all.  

 

btw he is my MP and so far I'm not impressed.

 

Somewhat of a more decent response deeside ?

Did I not warn you of voting Tory at the last GE? Me and you are roughly the same age, have you forgotten the Thatcher era, these clowns are 10 times worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
6 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Somewhat of a more decent response deeside ?

Did I not warn you of voting Tory at the last GE? Me and you are roughly the same age, have you forgotten the Thatcher era, these clowns are 10 times worse. 

Thatcher era - that’s easy.   She was imo mentally ill.

 

poll Tax in Scotland only?    That is simply not the work of a sane mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Speaking of which:

 

DbIzyL0X4AEtrEl.jpg

 

And that is why I left The Joke Party in 2011 and will never, ever vote for them or support them again. :down: 

:gok: 

AND

:seething: 

in equal measure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
18 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Thatcher era - that’s easy.   She was imo mentally ill.

 

poll Tax in Scotland only?    That is simply not the work of a sane mind.

 

It was introduced in Scotland 1 year before England. I got a bill for £800 working in Sainsbury’s. 

 

And she wasnt mentally ill at all, she wanted to hammer the less well off a bring in this continued policy of free markets solve all ills. Ask the under 40’s if they can buy a gaff now. 

Edited by Space Mackerel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
10 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

It was introduced in Scotland 1 year before England. I got a bill for £800 working in Sainsbury’s. 

 

And she wasnt mentally ill at all, she wanted to hammer the less well off a bring in this continued policy of free markets solve all ills. Ask the under 40’s if they can buy a gaff now. 

She was hatstand.  So was Hitler.

 

but May?    I just don’t believe she is deliberately evil.    In fact I don’t think anyone in Govt is.  I don’t vote Tory (except tactically to stop Indy!) but also I think it’s counter-productive to think Tories are deliberately trying to destroy society for the hell of it.  Some on this site seem to be of the view that Tories are evil - I personally think May won’t be sleeping well on this.

 

But I’m of the view that Labour will return for the same reasons most Govts change - failure of the current one instead of strength of the opposition.  Trump being a good example.

 

but your lot can do something here- get stuck into the Govt on immigration.   Call for a proper investigation but don’t overdo it.  Don’t go bonkers and make silly accusations that can’t be substantiated - find specific examples of those who have suffered and bombard the Govt in public with real data.

 

That is the job of opposition so if opposition parties don’t do it they are just as bad.  No excuses. Get after it.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
15 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

She was hatstand.  So was Hitler.

 

but May?    I just don’t believe she is deliberately evil.    In fact I don’t think anyone in Govt is.  I don’t vote Tory (except tactically to stop Indy!) but also I think it’s counter-productive to think Tories are deliberately trying to destroy society for the hell of it.  Some on this site seem to be of the view that Tories are evil - I personally think May won’t be sleeping well on this.

 

This article explains the Tories' mentality as well as anything I've read recently.

 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n05/william-davies/what-are-they-after

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
12 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

She was hatstand.  So was Hitler.

 

but May?    I just don’t believe she is deliberately evil.    In fact I don’t think anyone in Govt is.  I don’t vote Tory (except tactically to stop Indy!) but also I think it’s counter-productive to think Tories are deliberately trying to destroy society for the hell of it.  Some on this site seem to be of the view that Tories are evil - I personally think May won’t be sleeping well on this.

 

But I’m of the view that Labour will return for the same reasons most Govts change - failure of the current one instead of strength of the opposition.  Trump being a good example.

 

but your lot can do something here- get stuck into the Govt on immigration.   Call for a proper investigation but don’t overdo it.  Don’t go bonkers and make silly accusations that can’t be substantiated - find specific examples of those who have suffered and bombard the Govt in public with real data.

 

That is the job of opposition so if opposition parties don’t do it they are just as bad.  No excuses. Get after it.

 

 

 

 

 

So I was right? I have got a sane mind. I got a bill off the council (against their will I presume) for 800 notes working part time in Sainsbury’s circa 1988 after I just left full time schooling? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Paranoid? 

 

I only asked you what the BBC would say? It hasn’t even made the news, the main headline is all about plastic drinking straws  lol

 

MP does job should beat banning straws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
48 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

This article explains the Tories' mentality as well as anything I've read recently.

 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n05/william-davies/what-are-they-after

But that’s what I think.   I say they are incompetent but not evil.    That also seems to be what the article suggests?

 

but you say they are evil or vile or whatever, suggesting an intent to do harm.

 

I don’t buy that.   May is maybe incompetent but I don’t see her as deliberately evil.  I think you overplay that.

 

As for Brexiteers- they are quasi-xenophobes.   Brexit was all about immigration and nothing to do with economics.  The fall of UKIP post-Brexit confirms that.

 

imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
5 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

OK but doesn't this support my point that increasing the LTA gives the rich 30k more leeway?

 

Put another way, the LTA gives them 30k more tax allowance, so if the excess is taxed at 25% then they are getting 25% of 30k free of the LTA tax, i.e. £7500k extra?

 

I guess I see anyone earning 80k a year as "rich" while others see them as having more normal incomes.

 

ach Im just jealous, but I do see the gap between "Rich" (in my world anyone earning 80k) and poor (in my world anyone earning less than 30k) widening, as the 80k folk will get the extra £7500 tax relief that others wont.

 

And while I seethe, I note another scam.  Lets say as a hypothetical example, a spud is doing personal appearances, after-dinners, game shows, paid TV broadcasts, Edinburgh Festival appearances etc.  That spud can set up a Limited Company and charge from that, ending up liable only to Corporation Tax at 19%.  But wait, to offset that, he can employ a family member, lets say a spouse, and pay him/her a wage of, lets say £11,500 per year, thus offsetting Corporation tax.   And if said spouse is paid over £11,500 by spud, said spouse can pay into a personal pension also hence offsetting the whole lot.   And yes, if the spud also is below the LTA he could also pay himself a salary hence offsetting against his personal tax allowance, and if below the LTA, can pay into a pension hence getting tax relief on that also.

 

So imo its possible for spuds with Limited Companies to earn, say 50k a year and not pay any tax at all.

 

Individuals who's only selling point is themselves should not be allowed to set up Limited Companies.

 

 

£30k is the extra Lifetime Allowance but that needs to be divided by 20 (or multiplied by 5%) to get what that amounts to in top line pension. That is £1,500 gross and, in all probability, £900 net. Remember, the LTA is the notional amount that would need to be invested to return a pension of £x amount at 5% and lump sum at 100% (there is a limit on size of lump sum).

 

It could of course be taken as cash but, not knowing life expectancy, that might be short-sighted. 

 

Any pension income that exceeds LTA is taxed at 25% on top of marginal tax rate (most likely 65%). Any lump sum in excess of LTA is taxed at 55%. 

 

I think I can guess who your “spud” might be. It’s probably all legal if somewhat unethical but, with that size of ego, that individual is unlikely to lose sleep over it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
44 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

MP does job should beat banning straws?

 

Ive reached the conclusion that you just watch stuff on tele and soak it all up. 

How much is the license fee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
18 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

But that’s what I think.   I say they are incompetent but not evil.    That also seems to be what the article suggests?

 

but you say they are evil or vile or whatever, suggesting an intent to do harm.

 

I don’t buy that.   May is maybe incompetent but I don’t see her as deliberately evil.  I think you overplay that.

 

As for Brexiteers- they are quasi-xenophobes.   Brexit was all about immigration and nothing to do with economics.  The fall of UKIP post-Brexit confirms that.

 

imo

 

I'm afraid that's wilfully naive. It's about both. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/21/peter-thiel-republican-convention-speech

 

As for the Tories: it depends on your definition of 'evil'. They're not in Hitler's bracket, obviously. However: 

 

- When a party's policies are responsible for the deaths of well over 100,000 people, and it seeks to cover these numbers up rather than acknowledge it and sort these policies out; 

 

- When a party insists, through deliberate policy, on those working at the DWP coming up with nonsense reasons to sanction claimants

 

- When a party deliberately changes electoral registration rules to suit itself

 

- When a party tries to gerrymander constituencies in its favour

 

- When a party tries to stop trade union funding of its main rival

 

- When a party ignores repeated warnings about the effects of its "hostile environment" on many ordinary people 

 

- When a party's policies regarding that "hostile environment" are privately described by their own ministers as "reminiscent of Nazi Germany"

 

- And when, as we discover only today, the government refuses to work with its French counterparts in investigating money laundering - because the company concerned is the Tories' number 1 donor

 

I'm afraid that's not incompetence. It's much, much, much worse than that. It's horrendously malign. And in some cases, evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
8 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I'm afraid that's wilfully naive. It's about both. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/21/peter-thiel-republican-convention-speech

 

As for the Tories: it depends on your definition of 'evil'. They're not in Hitler's bracket, obviously. However: 

 

- When a party's policies are responsible for the deaths of well over 100,000 people, and it seeks to cover these numbers up rather than acknowledge it and sort these policies out; 

 

- When a party insists, through deliberate policy, on those working at the DWP coming up with nonsense reasons to sanction claimants

 

- When a party deliberately changes electoral registration rules to suit itself

 

- When a party tries to gerrymander constituencies in its favour

 

- When a party tries to stop trade union funding of its main rival

 

- When a party ignores repeated warnings about the effects of its "hostile environment" on many ordinary people 

 

- When a party's policies regarding that "hostile environment" are privately described by their own ministers as "reminiscent of Nazi Germany"

 

- And when, as we discover only today, the government refuses to work with its French counterparts in investigating money laundering - because the company concerned is the Tories' number 1 donor

 

I'm afraid that's not incompetence. It's much, much, much worse than that. It's horrendously malign. And in some cases, evil. 

 

You can say this all you want, deeside is a “tactical” voter,as proved on here.

 

Hes tactically decided to make himself a subject of the English ultra elites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
14 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You can say this all you want, deeside is a “tactical” voter,as proved on here.

 

Hes tactically decided to make himself a subject of the English ultra elites. 

 

"We can deport first and hear appeals later" - T. May, 2013

 

I mean, deeside... wakey wakey matey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpruceBringsteen
2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

As for the Tories: it depends on your definition of 'evil'. They're not in Hitler's bracket, obviously. However: 

 

- When a party's policies are responsible for the deaths of well over 100,000 people, and it seeks to cover these numbers up rather than acknowledge it and sort these policies out; 

 

- When a party insists, through deliberate policy, on those working at the DWP coming up with nonsense reasons to sanction claimants

 

- When a party deliberately changes electoral registration rules to suit itself

 

- When a party tries to gerrymander constituencies in its favour

 

- When a party tries to stop trade union funding of its main rival

 

- When a party ignores repeated warnings about the effects of its "hostile environment" on many ordinary people 

 

- When a party's policies regarding that "hostile environment" are privately described by their own ministers as "reminiscent of Nazi Germany"

 

- And when, as we discover only today, the government refuses to work with its French counterparts in investigating money laundering - because the company concerned is the Tories' number 1 donor

 

I'm afraid that's not incompetence. It's much, much, much worse than that. It's horrendously malign. And in some cases, evil. 

 

There's all that (and far more), and yet I think I saw someone earlier saying "Aye, but I'd rather vote for them than Corbyn"

 

What the shuddering **** could you possibly think Corbyn is going to do that's worse? I've next to no time for the guy, but do folk seriously think he's going to re-enact the great Chinese famine or something?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
4 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

"We can deport first and hear appeals later" - T. May, 2013

 

I mean, deeside... wakey wakey matey. 

Yes that one is indeed a shocker.   Has that been acted upon?  I mean has anyone been deported and is mos appealing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
2 hours ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

There's all that (and far more), and yet I think I saw someone earlier saying "Aye, but I'd rather vote for them than Corbyn"

 

What the shuddering **** could you possibly think Corbyn is going to do that's worse? I've next to no time for the guy, but do folk seriously think he's going to re-enact the great Chinese famine or something?!

I think there are a few shy Tories on here.    It’s right on to go Citizen Smith on them in here,  but in the security of the ballot box........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
4 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You can say this all you want, deeside is a “tactical” voter,as proved on here.

 

Hes tactically decided to make himself a subject of the English ultra elites. 

My missus is English so I’m already a subject of them.    But the success of the Tories in Scotland was due to anti-Indy voting and nothing to do with support for Tory policy.   People have Sturgeon to thank for that result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
14 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Yes that one is indeed a shocker.   Has that been acted upon?  I mean has anyone been deported and is mos appealing?

I checked this.   It was introduced for convicted criminals but then May was planning to extend it to everyone.

 

Rightly it has been deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court.

 

so maybe she is evil after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
5 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

"We can deport first and hear appeals later" - T. May, 2013

 

I mean, deeside... wakey wakey matey. 

What would you do about the Calais camps?  Personally I’d identify any of those with confirmed family in U.K. to enter.

 

you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Ive reached the conclusion that you just watch stuff on tele and soak it all up. 

How much is the license fee?

 

No no. I read too. Probably not from your prescribed list mind you.

 

What story have I missed? I see Mr Thomson has made son joke at ex-leader Saddam Hussein's expense. Which is a big no no. 

 

But your point was he was off galavanting not working - which was wrong. You then said I'd say different for an SNP politician - I told you I wouldn't. You then bemoaned Mr Thomson not getting MORE publicity than he deserved in comparison to an anti-plastics campaign. And when I questioned why, you seem to have started having a go at the BBC and my media habits...

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
13 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

No no. I read too. Probably not from your prescribed list mind you.

 

What story have I missed? I see Mr Thomson has made son joke at ex-leader Saddam Hussein's expense. Which is a big no no. 

 

But your point was he was off galavanting not working - which was wrong. You then said I'd say different for an SNP politician - I told you I wouldn't. You then bemoaned Mr Thomson not getting MORE publicity than he deserved in comparison to an anti-plastics campaign. And when I questioned why, you seem to have started having a go at the BBC and my media habits...

It wasn’t his best moment!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
9 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

But that’s what I think.   I say they are incompetent but not evil.    That also seems to be what the article suggests?

 

but you say they are evil or vile or whatever, suggesting an intent to do harm.

 

I don’t buy that.   May is maybe incompetent but I don’t see her as deliberately evil.  I think you overplay that.

 

As for Brexiteers- they are quasi-xenophobes.   Brexit was all about immigration and nothing to do with economics.  The fall of UKIP post-Brexit confirms that.

 

imo

I don’t think they’re evil I just think they come from such incredibly different backgrounds to normal people they literally have no idea what they’re doing. These people are aliens to us and certainly to the average Scottish person. 

May spoke of running through fields as some sort of mischief it’s a pure did ye aye moment and a indication of how far removed they are from anything resembling a real life with real experiences. 

The rest, pfft, Johnson is just a complete arse, how that man has a job either I don’t know and the likes of Gove what a horrible little man that is. He’s defo been bullied all his life and wants to get his own back. 

 

Edit: Just to add it sums up labour when I’d vote that lot back in to save ya getting Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot. 

 

Edited by jack D and coke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I don’t think they’re evil I just think they come from such incredibly different backgrounds to normal people they literally have no idea what they’re doing. These people are aliens to us and certainly to the average Scottish person. 

May spoke of running through fields as some sort of mischief it’s a pure did ye aye moment and a indication of how far removed they are from anything resembling a real life with real experiences. 

The rest, pfft, Johnson is just a complete arse, how that man has a job either I don’t know and the likes of Gove what a horrible little man that is. He’s defo been bullied all his life and wants to get his own back. 

 

Edit: Just to add it sums up labour when I’d vote that lot back in to save ya getting Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot. 

 

 

Why do you think that Corbyn et al are worse than the Tories?  Don't you suppose that elements within the Labour Party may temper the perceived "radicalism" that Corbyn would seem to personify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
38 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Why do you think that Corbyn et al are worse than the Tories?  Don't you suppose that elements within the Labour Party may temper the perceived "radicalism" that Corbyn would seem to personify?

Exactly this.     Labour also have stuff to fix but when they do they will be credible

 

i note all the “evil Tories” rehetoric, but when it comes to would you pay more personal tax to fund social justice KB goes silent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Exactly this.     Labour also have stuff to fix but when they do they will be credible

 

i note all the “evil Tories” rehetoric, but when it comes to would you pay more personal tax to fund social justice KB goes silent.

 

 

 

I don't necessarily see it as everyone needs to pay more tax.  Obviously the super-rish, those that use all sorts of scams to legally keep their cash tax free.   To me that's immoral, so I'd expect Govt to really close those loopholes.  Same for ompanies that pay hee-haw.

 

Our problem is that the narrative has been so defined over the last thirty to forty years around a low tax/monetarist/Thatcherite/Reaginomic dogma, that to now try to argue against it is seen as heresy.  The way Marxist is used pejoratively, not to mention communism.  Or even socialism is a dirty word these days.

 

If you haven't already, I'd urge you to read the article I linked to earlier.  I thought it was very good, but I gues I'm biased as it certainly concurs with my thoughts over the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I read that article. I thought it was awful. Romanticised nonsense with little foundation in fact or reality. Whilst i also felt it was poorly written with too much superfluous language it read like a Lawson post lol.

 

 

 

Hahaha.  Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

I don't necessarily see it as everyone needs to pay more tax.  Obviously the super-rish, those that use all sorts of scams to legally keep their cash tax free.   To me that's immoral, so I'd expect Govt to really close those loopholes.  Same for ompanies that pay hee-haw.

 

Our problem is that the narrative has been so defined over the last thirty to forty years around a low tax/monetarist/Thatcherite/Reaginomic dogma, that to now try to argue against it is seen as heresy.  The way Marxist is used pejoratively, not to mention communism.  Or even socialism is a dirty word these days.

 

If you haven't already, I'd urge you to read the article I linked to earlier.  I thought it was very good, but I gues I'm biased as it certainly concurs with my thoughts over the last few years.

Socialism should not ever be a dirty word.   I prefer Social Justice as a credo.  Everyone should strive for it.   It’s difficult as we all have different views of what it means.

 

i live up in sheepland where the definition of super-rich applies to many here.   IanWood for example Is a personal billionaire.   Shame on him,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Socialism should not ever be a dirty word.   I prefer Social Justice as a credo.  Everyone should strive for it.   It’s difficult as we all have different views of what it means.

 

i live up in sheepland where the definition of super-rich applies to many here.   IanWood for example Is a personal billionaire.   Shame on him,  

 

No!  It's not shameful to be rich.  It's shameful to be rich and not pay your dues.

 

There is also an argument about how people become rich e.g. through their own physical endeavour, or by capital, and that's a different (but similar!) argument I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
7 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

No!  It's not shameful to be rich.  It's shameful to be rich and not pay your dues.

 

There is also an argument about how people become rich e.g. through their own physical endeavour, or by capital, and that's a different (but similar!) argument I guess.

Absolutely nobody should be a billionaire.    Wood, Rowling, Madonna et etc.

 

Once someone has amassed a personal wealth of 20 million they should have to donate the rest to the nation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Absolutely nobody should be a billionaire.    Wood, Rowling, Madonna et etc.

 

Once someone has amassed a personal wealth of 20 million they should have to donate the rest to the nation

 

Once the ownership of the means of production is settle in the interests of the common good, then it may well be difficult to accumulate such wealth in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo

As Boris will confirm

the problem with socialism is that it does not fully buy into Marxism

socialism fails to address what to do with those who don't graft and try, who wont ( as opposed to cannot) contribute

the world has changed- there is little need now for unskilled labour

and with society ( the tax payer- NOT the government who merely spend the tax money) supporting increasing numbers of economically inactive elderly,

it cannot support the economically inactive young too without increasing burden on those working ( in all pay brackets)

so how do you square the circle?

 tax take is not an issue- it is higher than it has ever been- and rising

working people with kids are being squeezed to hell already

so who do you squeeze now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
9 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

As Boris will confirm

the problem with socialism is that it does not fully buy into Marxism

socialism fails to address what to do with those who don't graft and try, who wont ( as opposed to cannot) contribute

the world has changed- there is little need now for unskilled labour

and with society ( the tax payer- NOT the government who merely spend the tax money) supporting increasing numbers of economically inactive elderly,

it cannot support the economically inactive young too without increasing burden on those working ( in all pay brackets)

so how do you square the circle?

 tax take is not an issue- it is higher than it has ever been- and rising

working people with kids are being squeezed to hell already

so who do you squeeze now?

 

Ever thought about squeezing the tax dodgers and Tory donors who have multiple offshore accounts? 

 

Amber Rudd the Home Secretary is a good start. You should see what her brother is involved with too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
12 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Amber Rudd the Home Secretary is a good start. You should see what her brother is involved with too. 

 

Here's the double offshore account owning Home Secretary's idea of 'democracy', displayed at a hustings in her constituency during the general election campaign. Number of reports in the mainstream media about this? Zero.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are evil. They are racist. The only reason they are squirming now is because they have been caught.

 

Stop blaming the older generation for "stealing" the whole pot leaving nothing for the younger generation. It wasn't them, it was, and is, the UK Govt that have been, and are continuing, to steal that pot.

 

Somebody mentioned earlier in the thread that 100,000 UK citizens have died as a direct result of their policies. Under current UK Govt. terms of engagement we would be more than justified in "rounding them up, putting them in a field and bombing the B******s" as they are the biggest threat to life in the UK at this present time.

 

Tactical voting? Hmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
1 hour ago, Sraman said:

Stop blaming the older generation for "stealing" the whole pot leaving nothing for the younger generation. It wasn't them, it was, and is, the UK Govt that have been, and are continuing, to steal that pot.

 

Hmm. See the graphic I posted in my response to Francis here:

 

And see this too.

 

0*2Z8sfC3tX9wUOF5q.

 

Exactly how do you think this happened? Exactly how do you think Thatcherism in its various guises has been constantly voted in for 40 years? And exactly why do you think an enormous majority of over-65s vote Tory; while a similarly enormous majority of under-40s do not?

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Hmm. See the graphic I posted in my response to Francis here:

 

And see this too.

 

0*2Z8sfC3tX9wUOF5q.

 

Exactly how do you think this happened? Exactly how do you think Thatcherism in its various guises has been constantly voted in for 40 years? And exactly why do you think an enormous majority of over-65s vote Tory; while a similarly enormous majority of under-40s do not?

 

I'll tackle those questions in one answer, even though we should both be sleeping by now..........

 


Thatcher, is the short answer. The one thing that she did that created most of this was sell off the council houses to tenants who had previously been happy enough to rent. Of course most tenants jumped at the chance to get on the property ladder for a bargain, too good to be true, price. Now, even though they were cheap, most people still had to take out a 15-25 year mortgage to cover the cost. These council houses were now lost as a revenue stream for councils, which is a travesty in itself but the crux is that the people who bought them were now tied to mortgages. When you have a mortgage it's almost impossible to get by without working and as she had previously decimated most traditional industries, if you were lucky enough to have a job, you felt you had to toe the company line to ensure you stayed in employment. You become scared of losing your job as you lose your house and there are no council houses left to go back into so striking etc, is out of the question. The Unions were Maggie's biggest bug bear and this was all part of her plan to ensure that the working classes couldn't rock the boat due to the fear of losing everything whereas before, if they lost their job, they would get their rent adjusted or help to pay it for them until they found other work then their rent would go back to normal with no arrears to take care of. It took a little while and a lot of head scratching for these folks to realise that when something broke you had to pay to repair it rather than calling the council out to do it for you as well as continue to pay your mortgage with very little assistance if you lost your job, which was a real possibility at the time due to the fore mentioned decimation of traditional industries. 

 

People would take any job just to keep their heads above water without complaint and after a while began to believe that they were a better class of person as they were a property owner. They would keep an eye on the house prices in their area to "see how much they had made" on their investment, a bit like HBoS employees involved in the company share scheme looking at the share prices, bragging how much they were worth and how they would sell up when their shares hit £15 and retire at 35. We all know now that that didn't go too well for them but share save schemes do the exact same thing to people as owning a property does. It makes you feel as though you have a vested interest in the company so you work harder to try to ensure the share price is kept at a premium as you measure your worth against your assets when all you are really doing is paying the company a fee to work for them.

 

Now, as people looked at the value of their property rising they gained that false sense of their worth increasing. They were using new words and phrases. Words and phrases that weren't traditionally used by the working classes but were more associated with the Tories. They began to believe they were better than those around them who hadn't taken up the offer. That's also when the Labour Party started to lurch to the right to try to win votes back from these people, not all of them jumped ship to the tories, but enough did to cause Labour to shit the bed and start dropping their principles in the chase for all important votes to get back into power. Again, we all now know that that didn't work out too well for them either as they continued to drop their principles until we ended up with Blair and Brown. Brown sold off all the gold reserves at rock bottom prices and as a result our economy is largely based on property. We have a lack of housing in this country and a glut of industrial/retail/office space. The lack of housing keeps the prices artificially inflated and, as everybody knows, most Industrial/retail/office space is owned by the large investment companies such as Standard Life, Scottish Widows, etc who endeavour to keep their investment values moving in the upwards direction and the Govt. is only too happy to assist with this. With property so heavily involved in the economies worth it has to keep increasing in value at ridiculous rates or we tank as a country. It's all a house of cards that could come tumbling down at any minute and I suspect that is why the Tories want everything coming back from the EU to go to Westminster so that they can trade it all back again for the right to keep that financial ticket so that they can carry on as before artificially controlling the economy to the detriment of the people.

 

There you go. It ended up being a bit longer than I expected, you could say I've done a bit of a Lawson except I haven't linked to anything, I haven't looked anything up. All of this is my own thoughts based on personal experience, yep I worked for HBoS for a while and it kind of disgusted me to be honest, I have also worked in property for quite a few years which also really disgusted me. The one good thing about the job I did in HBoS was getting to meet retired Bank Managers who were equally as, if not more, disgusted at the way they did business at the time and could see the way things were heading.

 

One last thing before I fall asleep at my keyboard. The only youngsters I know with an iPhone are on the rob. Cheap Huawei's all round, just like myself. The Chinese have all my call logs and text data, the Tories have sold all my browsing data to the Russians so that they can interfere in Scottish elections for them.

 

As I say, don't blame the older generation. It's not their fault. It's the government. You know exactly how it works, divide and rule then lay the blame at anyone's door except their's.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
6 hours ago, Sraman said:

 

Tactical voting? Hmm.

You can hmm all you want but it is true.  Its blindingly obvious thousands of people voted Tory in Scotland last GE because of the Indy issue, not because of Tory policies per se. 

 

Otherwise how can you explain their vote increase in Scotland as compared to rUK?

 

You have Sturgeon to thank for that and Davidson jumped on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
3 hours ago, Sraman said:

 

I'll tackle those questions in one answer, even though we should both be sleeping by now..........

 


Thatcher, is the short answer. The one thing that she did that created most of this was sell off the council houses to tenants who had previously been happy enough to rent. Of course most tenants jumped at the chance to get on the property ladder for a bargain, too good to be true, price. Now, even though they were cheap, most people still had to take out a 15-25 year mortgage to cover the cost. These council houses were now lost as a revenue stream for councils, which is a travesty in itself but the crux is that the people who bought them were now tied to mortgages. When you have a mortgage it's almost impossible to get by without working and as she had previously decimated most traditional industries, if you were lucky enough to have a job, you felt you had to toe the company line to ensure you stayed in employment. You become scared of losing your job as you lose your house and there are no council houses left to go back into so striking etc, is out of the question. The Unions were Maggie's biggest bug bear and this was all part of her plan to ensure that the working classes couldn't rock the boat due to the fear of losing everything whereas before, if they lost their job, they would get their rent adjusted or help to pay it for them until they found other work then their rent would go back to normal with no arrears to take care of. It took a little while and a lot of head scratching for these folks to realise that when something broke you had to pay to repair it rather than calling the council out to do it for you as well as continue to pay your mortgage with very little assistance if you lost your job, which was a real possibility at the time due to the fore mentioned decimation of traditional industries. 

 

People would take any job just to keep their heads above water without complaint and after a while began to believe that they were a better class of person as they were a property owner. They would keep an eye on the house prices in their area to "see how much they had made" on their investment, a bit like HBoS employees involved in the company share scheme looking at the share prices, bragging how much they were worth and how they would sell up when their shares hit £15 and retire at 35. We all know now that that didn't go too well for them but share save schemes do the exact same thing to people as owning a property does. It makes you feel as though you have a vested interest in the company so you work harder to try to ensure the share price is kept at a premium as you measure your worth against your assets when all you are really doing is paying the company a fee to work for them.

 

Now, as people looked at the value of their property rising they gained that false sense of their worth increasing. They were using new words and phrases. Words and phrases that weren't traditionally used by the working classes but were more associated with the Tories. They began to believe they were better than those around them who hadn't taken up the offer. That's also when the Labour Party started to lurch to the right to try to win votes back from these people, not all of them jumped ship to the tories, but enough did to cause Labour to shit the bed and start dropping their principles in the chase for all important votes to get back into power. Again, we all now know that that didn't work out too well for them either as they continued to drop their principles until we ended up with Blair and Brown. Brown sold off all the gold reserves at rock bottom prices and as a result our economy is largely based on property. We have a lack of housing in this country and a glut of industrial/retail/office space. The lack of housing keeps the prices artificially inflated and, as everybody knows, most Industrial/retail/office space is owned by the large investment companies such as Standard Life, Scottish Widows, etc who endeavour to keep their investment values moving in the upwards direction and the Govt. is only too happy to assist with this. With property so heavily involved in the economies worth it has to keep increasing in value at ridiculous rates or we tank as a country. It's all a house of cards that could come tumbling down at any minute and I suspect that is why the Tories want everything coming back from the EU to go to Westminster so that they can trade it all back again for the right to keep that financial ticket so that they can carry on as before artificially controlling the economy to the detriment of the people.

 

There you go. It ended up being a bit longer than I expected, you could say I've done a bit of a Lawson except I haven't linked to anything, I haven't looked anything up. All of this is my own thoughts based on personal experience, yep I worked for HBoS for a while and it kind of disgusted me to be honest, I have also worked in property for quite a few years which also really disgusted me. The one good thing about the job I did in HBoS was getting to meet retired Bank Managers who were equally as, if not more, disgusted at the way they did business at the time and could see the way things were heading.

 

One last thing before I fall asleep at my keyboard. The only youngsters I know with an iPhone are on the rob. Cheap Huawei's all round, just like myself. The Chinese have all my call logs and text data, the Tories have sold all my browsing data to the Russians so that they can interfere in Scottish elections for them.

 

As I say, don't blame the older generation. It's not their fault. It's the government. You know exactly how it works, divide and rule then lay the blame at anyone's door except their's.

 

 

 

Ok you , Shaun, and Spacey do a lot of greetin on this thread, but I dont see you proposing solutions.

 

So what would you do?   

 

I,ll start- 

 

Increase the higher tax rate to 45% for anyone over 80k

 

Massively increase Inheritance tax for all estates over £100,000 to stop the wealth of the rich old people just going to their kids.

 

Increase the starting tax threshold to whatever it needs to be to balance the tax revenue with the above, thereby shifting tax burden away from poor towards those who can afford it.

 

reduce the Pension LTA to £500k

 

reduce the annual tax free pension limit to 10k to stop the tax avoidance which is making older people richer.

 

allow all those in Calais with proven families in the U.K. to enter.

 

this to me is fair.

 

So over to you chaps -  what would you do?

Edited by deesidejambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...