General Election 2019

[The Mighty Thor]

6 hours ago, Cade said:

Nationalised industry making money for the treasury so we can afford better social care programs = evil communism

 

Taxpayers money being used to subsidise private firms that then take the profits offshore = glorious liberalism

 

Ah the thatcherite dogma. Alive and well and at the heart of everything these charlatans do. 

[Brighton Jambo]

9 hours ago, Spitonastranger said:

Who said anything about the SNP the tories found a magic money tree that's what my answer was about but you go to whatabouttery 

Which I responded to directly as I responded to you twice?  I’m not sure you are quite grasping the economics of this situation.  One billion for DUP versus hundreds of billions for labour manifesto.  If Tories found a money tree what the **** do you call that level of spending.  You are inadvertently reinforcing the stereotype- Tory’s good with money and economy and labour a total cluster****.  

[doctor jambo]

11 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

fair enough, before my time but I'm only in my 40s! It's been done successfully several times since 1986 when they died though, I'd expect a slightly more modern outlook and approach!

 

The core of it is this though - how come a private company could make money from our trains while a company with shares owned by the government couldn't?

It depends on the party running it.

some parties could run them at a profit. Corbyn would not. He’d sustain loss makers like Royal Mail  which will eventually die out at a cost to the treasury at the behest of the unions.

[ri Alban]

46 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

It depends on the party running it.

some parties could run them at a profit. Corbyn would not. He’d sustain loss makers like Royal Mail  which will eventually die out at a cost to the treasury at the behest of the unions.

Why the big fuss on profits. If it runs a loss, but functions superbly, that's what counts. Cheaper and reliable for the people! 

[jack D and coke]

53 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

It depends on the party running it.

some parties could run them at a profit. Corbyn would not. He’d sustain loss makers like Royal Mail  which will eventually die out at a cost to the treasury at the behest of the unions.

 

6 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Why the big fuss on profits. If it runs a loss, but functions superbly, that's what counts. Cheaper and reliable for the people! 

Was Royal Mail running at a loss? I haven’t checked but was sure it wasn’t...

[Unknown user]

51 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

It depends on the party running it.

some parties could run them at a profit. Corbyn would not. He’d sustain loss makers like Royal Mail  which will eventually die out at a cost to the treasury at the behest of the unions.

 

Again, the obsession with how things were 30+ years ago.

No political party would be running these businesses, they'd be run by their management. 

I say again, how come a company with shares held by greedy fat *******s can make money, while one with shares held by the government couldn't?

 

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Why the big fuss on profits. If it runs a loss, but functions superbly, that's what counts. Cheaper and reliable for the people! 

 

We live in a country obsessed by profit, if something doesnt make profit it's immediately bad. 

I see no reason these companies couldn't be net contributors to the public purse, but even if they weren't, what's wrong with spending taxpayers money on things that benefit the taxpayer?

Why does there have to be some fat ***** in the middle making a fortune for people to be happy?

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Again, the obsession with how things were 30+ years ago.

No political party would be running these businesses, they'd be run by their management. 

I say again, how come a company with shares held by greedy fat *******s can make money, while one with shares held by the government couldn't?

 

 

We live in a country obsessed by profit, if something doesnt make profit it's immediately bad. 

I see no reason these companies couldn't be net contributors to the public purse, but even if they weren't, what's wrong with spending taxpayers money on things that benefit the taxpayer?

Why does there have to be some fat ***** in the middle making a fortune for people to be happy?

👍

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

Was Royal Mail running at a loss? I haven’t checked but was sure it wasn’t...

Ask Vincent Cable

[Unknown user]

"Yeah but Corbyn"

[ri Alban]

Excellent manifesto, I could vote Labour no problem, but they're no giving me independence. So naw.

[doctor jambo]

3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Excellent manifesto, I could vote Labour no problem, but they're no giving me independence. So naw.

THe difficulty is not the actual ideals in it, per se, but the reality.

Enforcement of his tax ideas would cause utter chaos.

He appears to be working on the presumption that all income over £80 k is merely swilling around in bank accounts, or spent on holidays etc.

You hike tax rates overnight, what do you think the effect will be on those earning it?

For example the pension changes to the Dr's has meant staff shortages as many senior staff were handed massive bills from HMRC, so now the NHS is having to pay those bills, or have no staff willing to do overtime- this delusion of high pay= lots of SPARE cash is bizarre.

People cannot suddenly reduce their outgoings .

[ri Alban]

32 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

THe difficulty is not the actual ideals in it, per se, but the reality.

Enforcement of his tax ideas would cause utter chaos.

He appears to be working on the presumption that all income over £80 k is merely swilling around in bank accounts, or spent on holidays etc.

You hike tax rates overnight, what do you think the effect will be on those earning it?

For example the pension changes to the Dr's has meant staff shortages as many senior staff were handed massive bills from HMRC, so now the NHS is having to pay those bills, or have no staff willing to do overtime- this delusion of high pay= lots of SPARE cash is bizarre.

People cannot suddenly reduce their outgoings .

All depends how quickly they overhaul the system. Brilliant services save people money. Public transport, Education, Bad Health prevention, Housing, poverty and Non participation in war, could lead to a settled, healthy, peaceful, well educated population, that can get everywhere when the want too. Well, feck that, eh?

Edited November 22, 2019 by ri Alban

[Spitonastranger]

2 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Which I responded to directly as I responded to you twice?  I’m not sure you are quite grasping the economics of this situation.  One billion for DUP versus hundreds of billions for labour manifesto.  If Tories found a money tree what the **** do you call that level of spending.  You are inadvertently reinforcing the stereotype- Tory’s good with money and economy and labour a total cluster****.  

Absolute guff goodbye

[doctor jambo]

4 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

All depends how quickly they overhaul the system. Brilliant services save people money. Public transport, Education, Bad Health prevention, Housing, poverty and Non participation in war, could lead to a settled, healthy, peaceful, well educated population, that can get everywhere when the want too. Well, feck that, eh?

Well, he will have five years. and needs certainly tens of billions to even start.... and catching the "big guns"  with extra charges will get bogged down in court. So you are left with the wee guys again to pick up the tab.

Scotland increased its "extra" rate income tax by 1 % and the total tax take fell by £100 million.

Good luck with that

[jack D and coke]

15 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Well, he will have five years. and needs certainly tens of billions to even start.... and catching the "big guns"  with extra charges will get bogged down in court. So you are left with the wee guys again to pick up the tab.

Scotland increased its "extra" rate income tax by 1 % and the total tax take fell by £100 million.

Good luck with that

That’s honestly why I think income tax needs done away with altogether, or at least seriously looked at. Nobody wants to pay more and if I could find ways to pay less I’m not going to lie and say I wouldn’t do it, im sure I’m not alone. There’s just too many ways around it all, loopholes etc. I’m sure some American state has done it. 

[Justin Z]

I haven't looked at the tax plan at all. I'm seeing off the cuff claims it would amount to an extra £1 a week for someone right on £80k.

 

If that's actually true, and some of you are actually complaining whilst people are homeless and dying on the streets, you need to have a long, hard look at yourselves.

[dobmisterdobster]

11 hours ago, RobboM said:

Boris Johnson chickens out of a leaders debate on C4

There was never a chance of Boris agreeing to go on Channel 4 with their student union quality of journalism.

[jack D and coke]

7 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

There was never a chance of Boris agreeing to go on Channel 4 with their student union quality of journalism.

No just have cosy ones with a silly wee giggly girl who he’s clearly banged like Kuennsberg. 
 

[Justin Z]

27 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I haven't looked at the tax plan at all. I'm seeing off the cuff claims it would amount to an extra £1 a week for someone right on £80k.

 

If that's actually true, and some of you are actually complaining whilst people are homeless and dying on the streets, you need to have a long, hard look at yourselves.

 

£4.81 per week. Actually checked the figures.

 

Same comment applies.

[RobboM]

44 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

There was never a chance of Boris agreeing to go on Channel 4 with their student union quality of journalism.

Yep, better to stick with fake twitter accounts, fake websites and fake news

[Pans Jambo]

2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

THe difficulty is not the actual ideals in it, per se, but the reality.

Enforcement of his tax ideas would cause utter chaos.

He appears to be working on the presumption that all income over £80 k is merely swilling around in bank accounts, or spent on holidays etc.

You hike tax rates overnight, what do you think the effect will be on those earning it?

For example the pension changes to the Dr's has meant staff shortages as many senior staff were handed massive bills from HMRC, so now the NHS is having to pay those bills, or have no staff willing to do overtime- this delusion of high pay= lots of SPARE cash is bizarre.

People cannot suddenly reduce their outgoings .

You have said something similar before (probably during the Indy ref1).

 

I read that you are too poor to pay anymore tax because you have taken your £80K plus per year and you spend it on things that folks on much less could not afford like a massive house, non-affordable car(s), expensive holidays, Designer clobber, Private school education for your kids, maybe even a horse!

Now I am just guessing here but a bloke on exactly HALF of those earnings could have a reasonable home, an affordable car, a holiday to europe once a year and reasonable standard of life.

 

If you dont have cash "swilling about" on £80K+ per year then I would suggest you have made some very bad choices my friend.

 

YOU ARE NOT KIM KARDASHIAN!!!

 

(or maybe you are).

[Victorian]

It's all about entitlement.     Accustomed comfort.    Complacency.      A conditioned belief that one is already paying too much tax or the maximum amount possible without it being unfair.     Belief in obsolete tropes.     This not only applies to very high earners and those with accumulated wealth.    It applies all the way down to the lower end of mean / median income.

 

Why should I pay more?    Someone else should pay.    Some people aren't paying the correct amount.    It will be wasted on inefficiencies anyway.     

 

Society needs to challenge itself to discard this stupor.

[Francis Albert]

18 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I would say internet is now an absolute necessity.

 

Even if you are unlucky enough to become unemployed or need to claim benefits guess what....you, you need to claim "on-line".

 

Your Bank Accounts - "on-line".

Your Credit Card - "on line".

Your Home insurance - "on-line".

Your utilities - "on-line".

Your personal taxes - "on-line".

Tell the council the street light is broken - "on-line".

Pay for your TV Licence - "on-line".

Digital TV - "on-line".

Pay your car road tax - "on-line".

Car Insurance - "on-line".

Book a slot to "meet the teacher" at your kids school - "on-line".

Book a holiday - "on-line".

E-mails - "on-line".

 

And it goes on & on & on & on.

 

Not a nice to have, an absolute necessity to get by in life nowadays.

 

The great majority of those can still  be done off-line. And even with free broadband many (among the poor, the elderly and technically challenged ) will still want to or need to do them off-line. 

Still it will mean banks and the like will be freer to close branches to make it more difficult and of course make bigger profits. 

For those not challenged in the above ways the convenience of doing things on-line is often overstated. As security for protection against fraud becomes ever more complicated and time consuming doing things on-line can be time consuming and frustrating.. 

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The great majority of those can still  be done off-line. And even with free broadband many (among the poor, the elderly and technically challenged ) will still want to or need to do them off-line. 

Still it will mean banks and the like will be freer to close branches to make it more difficult and of course make bigger profits. 

For those not challenged in the above ways the convenience of doing things on-line is often overstated. As security for protection against fraud becomes ever more complicated and time consuming doing things on-line can be time consuming and frustrating.. 

I knew someone would say that.

 

My response...you can still buy horses and carts too you know!

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

16 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

It may be the ‘rights’ view but based on history it’s not an unreasonable one.  In this country we have never managed that model successfully before and if you think Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott have the capability to put those structures in place them I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you.  

 

Its unicorn land stuff based on the current labour shadow cabinet.  

Have said this before on this thread but there are some in Labour who could run a sensible socialist ship. These three are chancers with no pragmatism and a lack of political intelligence. They play to a crowd who would not be very well served by them 

[Francis Albert]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

I knew someone would say that.

 

My response...you can still buy horses and carts too you know!

I forgot to mention the cost of anti-virus and security related software which is also a necessity if you are doing many of the things listed. Will that be free also?

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I forgot to mention the cost of anti-virus and security related software which is also a necessity if you are doing many of the things listed. Will that be free also?

How the feck would I know? 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

18 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I would say internet is now an absolute necessity.

 

Even if you are unlucky enough to become unemployed or need to claim benefits guess what....you, you need to claim "on-line".

 

Your Bank Accounts - "on-line".

Your Credit Card - "on line".

Your Home insurance - "on-line".

Your utilities - "on-line".

Your personal taxes - "on-line".

Tell the council the street light is broken - "on-line".

Pay for your TV Licence - "on-line".

Digital TV - "on-line".

Pay your car road tax - "on-line".

Car Insurance - "on-line".

Book a slot to "meet the teacher" at your kids school - "on-line".

Book a holiday - "on-line".

E-mails - "on-line".

 

And it goes on & on & on & on.

 

Not a nice to have, an absolute necessity to get by in life nowadays.

 

I’m still not having the argument that broadband should be a basic right

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I forgot to mention the cost of anti-virus and security related software which is also a necessity if you are doing many of the things listed. Will that be free also?

you pay for anti virus?

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

How the feck would I know? 

Wasn't addressed to you just amplifying my post you replied to. 

 

But Extinction Rebellion no doubt would welcome your point about horses and carts still being available. 

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Wasn't addressed to you just amplifying my post you replied to. 

 

But Extinction Rebellion no doubt would welcome your point about horses and carts still being available. 

Mon the ponies...

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

you pay for anti virus?

I pay for software protection against various threats. Don't you?

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Wasn't addressed to you just amplifying my post you replied to. 

 

But Extinction Rebellion no doubt would welcome your point about horses and carts still being available. 

But they aren't, the working Horse is nearly no more. Shocking!

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

I pay for software protection against various threats. Don't you?

 

No

[RobboM]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I pay for software protection against various threats. Don't you?

No

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No

Maybe McAfee and  the likes should be shut down for defrauding their customers if their products are not needed. If it comes pre-installed you are still paying for it.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe McAfee and  the likes should be shut down for defrauding their customers if their products are not needed.

 

Maybe, it's not really the point, but some people feel safer with paid options even though there are plenty free options out there. 

[RobboM]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Maybe, it's not really the point, but some people feel safer with paid options even though there are plenty free options out there. 

Agreed and well reviewed and tested free versions of products too. They have been around for many years

[Ray Gin]

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I pay for software protection against various threats. Don't you?

 

Windows 10 has a perfectly good anti-virus built in, so no.

[dobmisterdobster]

I don't pay for antivirus but I do pay for a quality VPN. Worth the money.

[The Mighty Thor]

2 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

There was never a chance of Boris agreeing to go on Channel 4 with their student union quality of journalism.

 

Dom was never going to allow his pet gorilla anywhere near a proper debate let alone a proper journalist. Much easier to deal with the PR fluff like Kuenssberg or the chronically inept like the bird that oversaw that shambles earlier this week.

 

No the Tories are locking it down tight because they know as soon as they put any of their front runners in front of a proper journalist they'll melt like snow in the Sahara.

 

That's why you haven't seen Moggy or Bridgen or Francois on the TV for weeks, Dom is shitting himself as the gaffes are just below the surface.

 

Stick to the BBC, where the truth is the first casualty to staying 'on message'.

[Pans Jambo]

20 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

Dom was never going to allow his pet gorilla anywhere near a proper debate let alone a proper journalist. Much easier to deal with the PR fluff like Kuenssberg or the chronically inept like the bird that oversaw that shambles earlier this week.

 

No the Tories are locking it down tight because they know as soon as they put any of their front runners in front of a proper journalist they'll melt like snow in the Sahara.

 

That's why you haven't seen Moggy or Bridgen or Francois on the TV for weeks, Dom is shitting himself as the gaffes are just below the surface.

 

Stick to the BBC, where the truth is the first casualty to staying 'on message'.

Exactly!

[Brighton Jambo]

I will be one of the people who pays more tax under a Labour government.  I have no problem with paying more and obviously not at the figures quoted above.

 

But what I do have a problem with is what that money is spent on and that why I begrudge it. 

 

If that money was for improving existing problems like NHS, Education, infrastructure projects, new housing, policing then fine.  But I fundamentally disagree with a bigger state and nationalisation.  I don’t care if it’s 1p or £10k a year I don’t want my hard earned money spent on nationalising the likes of Rail and Water and especially not Mail.  I also have no faith whatsoever that a JC led government with that front bench have the skills or expertise to make a success of these nationalisation projects.  

 

Thats why i oppose paying paying more tax under a JC government.  

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

You have said something similar before (probably during the Indy ref1).

 

I read that you are too poor to pay anymore tax because you have taken your £80K plus per year and you spend it on things that folks on much less could not afford like a massive house, non-affordable car(s), expensive holidays, Designer clobber, Private school education for your kids, maybe even a horse!

Now I am just guessing here but a bloke on exactly HALF of those earnings could have a reasonable home, an affordable car, a holiday to europe once a year and reasonable standard of life.

 

If you dont have cash "swilling about" on £80K+ per year then I would suggest you have made some very bad choices my friend.

 

YOU ARE NOT KIM KARDASHIAN!!!

 

(or maybe you are).

People on 80k do not buy "designer clobber".

The Kardashian lifestyle is for neds.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, dobmisterdobster said:

People on 80k do not buy "designer clobber".

The Kardashian lifestyle is for neds.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

is it tweeds?

[RobboM]

36 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

is it tweeds?

Nope

[Pans Jambo]

6 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Nope

 👍

[Ray Gin]

 

 

Typical Tory ****. In the top 5% of earners in the country but shitting bricks about paying a measly £10 a month towards public services.

 

 

 

[RobboM]

12 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

Typical Tory ****. In the top 5% of earners in the country but shitting bricks about paying a measly £10 a month towards public services.

 

 

 

The text of the BBC tweet should be calling out his utter nonsense instead of just relaying his uninformed and incorrect assertion.

Unless you click through to watch the clip the message from the BBC is Labour are Liars. That could have come straight from CCHQ

[Taffin]

5 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

THe difficulty is not the actual ideals in it, per se, but the reality.

Enforcement of his tax ideas would cause utter chaos.

He appears to be working on the presumption that all income over £80 k is merely swilling around in bank accounts, or spent on holidays etc.

You hike tax rates overnight, what do you think the effect will be on those earning it?

For example the pension changes to the Dr's has meant staff shortages as many senior staff were handed massive bills from HMRC, so now the NHS is having to pay those bills, or have no staff willing to do overtime- this delusion of high pay= lots of SPARE cash is bizarre.

People cannot suddenly reduce their outgoings .

 

It's a good point, we can't have rich people suddenly struggling to pay for things...that hardship is reserved for the poor.

 

If one is on 80k+ per year and don't have a sizeable contigency fund in accessible cash then more fool them