[Politics] The General Election Thread

[Lower West Stander]

Care to comment on the above, and enlighten us all as to how the press bias is not a thing?






I think you’d find if you bothered to check, that I said no such thing. I’m fairly certain that my stated opinion was that the special requirements of the child involved were (rightly) not in the public domain, and as such we were not well placed to judge the parents’ decision.

Were you trying to throw in an example of deliberate misrepresentation of someone’s views, in order to illustrate my point!?

Anyone can pull out one article to make the point they want to make.

Something you are completely missing. It is the default option of Corbyn supporters to blame the press when things aren’t going as they would wish - amply demonstrated by yourself here.

And your last point is just crap. If Corbyn got his way, Roedean wouldn’t exist so the “special requirements” you refer to would not be relevant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lower West Stander]

Yet to hear a single policy that even relates to an attack on stock markets but okay.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You can’t be serious.

It’s labour policies which will be an attack on stock markets. The reason they haven’t got down is because the City doesn’t believe they will win. I should know - I work there.

By all means support your beliefs, but don’t delude yourself into thinking the markets won’t tank if Corbyn wins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[theonlymikey]

You can’t be serious.

It’s labour policies which will be an attack on stock markets. The reason they haven’t got down is because the City doesn’t believe they will win. I should know - I work there.

By all means support your beliefs, but don’t delude yourself into thinking the markets won’t tank if Corbyn wins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They won't. especially not as much as if brexit goes through.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[theonlymikey]

Anyone can pull out one article to make the point they want to make.

Something you are completely missing. It is the default option of Corbyn supporters to blame the press when things aren’t going as they would wish - amply demonstrated by yourself here.

And your last point is just crap. If Corbyn got his way, Roedean wouldn’t exist so the “special requirements” you refer to would not be relevant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's the default of anti Corbynistas to act like media doesn't matter. Despite advertising being worth billions globally.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

T.I.S. This is Sussex. Tory ***** on here are par for the course.

On this very rare occasion I raise an eyebrow at one of your posts ....yes, I'm sure there are (***** on here), but the people I chat with on here who support the tories are nice and decent. Is there a resolution to this conundrum?

Hang on.....ah yes. Got it. I have about 20 people on ignore. A tiny number. I presume they are noisy and relentless

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's the default of anti Corbynistas to act like media doesn't matter. Despite advertising being worth billions globally.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Try to not get overwrought. Sift the wheat from the chaff. You'll get nowhere by picking a fight with everyone. These are interesting times, and most people who engage on NSC are perfectly decent. Put the loonies on ignore and you mojo will improve

 

[Bakero]

You can’t be serious.

It’s labour policies which will be an attack on stock markets. The reason they haven’t got down is because the City doesn’t believe they will win. I should know - I work there.

By all means support your beliefs, but don’t delude yourself into thinking the markets won’t tank if Corbyn wins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Will the markets not tank when Boris Gets Brexit Done® ?

 

[theonlymikey]

good liberal economics you have have there, all you need to do is detach from the view everything has to be nationalised. its effective 100% subsidy to the operating organisation.

I don't know enough to figure out if you're being serious our taking the piss out of me hahaha

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

For goodness sake, stop blaming the press.

What you are talking about is a massive over simplification. Even if the basic principle of broadband for all through tax was regarded as a good thing, most people are intelligent enough to see that it is a completely inattainable goal. That is why Labour are so far behind in the polls.

But then again, you thought a Corbynista councillor sending his daughter to Roedean wasn’t hypocritical.....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If people were smart enough to work out what was possible and what was not, Brexit would not have got 17.4 Million votes. You might be interested to know that considerable amounts of tax payers money has and is subsidising OpenReach installation of FTTP and non FTTP broadband.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/building-digital-uk#european-funding-for-broadband

Tories would use at least £5 Billion of taxpayers money to get FTTP to rural areas, I believe I read somewhere that Openreach had received more than £600 million of public funds in the last 6 months under current grant schemes, of which there are several.

 

[Motogull]

The upcoming general election has nothing to do with manifestos. It is a shoot out:

If you want any brexit, vote blue. Johnson might be advocating a deal but don't be surprised if it ends up no deal. If you want a soft one or to seek to preserve a possible revoke, vote tactically.

Personally I want a Lab/Lib coalition. It will be pretty useless generally, but the brexit position will be managed better. Then have a conventional election once something is set in stone. As I see it, Johnson bungling will be much harder to unravel than Corbyn/big tits bungling.

 

[Weststander]

The upcoming general election has nothing to do with manifestos. It is a shoot out:

If you want any brexit, vote blue. Johnson might be advocating a deal but don't be surprised if it ends up no deal. If you want a soft one or to seek to preserve a possible revoke, vote tactically.

Personally I want a Lab/Lib coalition. It will be pretty useless generally, but the brexit position will be managed better. Then have a conventional election once something is set in stone. As I see it, Johnson bungling will be much harder to unravel than Corbyn/big tits bungling.

One problem with a LibLab Coaltion:

LibDems - wholly stay in the EU as was. Absolutely no Norway+, etc etc.

Corbyn/McDonnell/McCluskey - career anti-EU, whilst many other senior Labour figures and MP’s want a pragmatic middle way relationship with the EU.

Shirley another Commons of indecision and backstabbing?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The upcoming general election has nothing to do with manifestos. It is a shoot out:

If you want any brexit, vote blue. Johnson might be advocating a deal but don't be surprised if it ends up no deal. If you want a soft one or to seek to preserve a possible revoke, vote tactically.

Personally I want a Lab/Lib coalition. It will be pretty useless generally, but the brexit position will be managed better. Then have a conventional election once something is set in stone. As I see it, Johnson bungling will be much harder to unravel than Corbyn/big tits bungling.

Unfortunatley we can't vote for coalition (or, indeed, a government). Just one MP. Tough choices ahead...

 

[Baldseagull]

Mikey, My concern for pensions is regarding the effect Labour's war on industry would likely have on the stockmarket and thus on the pension funds invested in the market.
Moving onto Labour's plans for renationalisation, I refer you to an article that appeared in the FT concerning the possible effect on pension funds.In brief, it said 'several in industry warn that pension pots will definitely suffer a shortfall due to Labour plans to nationalise key infrastructure areas. George Bull,senior tax partner at RSM UK says:'because infrastructure investments will constitute part of the fund value for almost every defined benefit and defined contribution pension arrangement, the effect of nationalisation at less than current market value must be considered carefully by a Corbyn Government if chaos is to be avoided.Mr Bull goes on to say that while there may be some advantage for early movers, the general impact would be a reduction in fund values.'
The Global Infrastructure Investor Association says that more than 100 UK pension schemes are invested in infrastructure sectors that would be affected by nationalisation . This represents about 8 million pension pots, mostly from the public sector.The article goes on to say that in the case of DC funds, the reduction in forecast pensions which would follow nationalisation at less than full market value raises the spectre of workers taking industrial action in consequence of change imposed by a Labour government. For employees with DB schemes, shortfalls would arise that would necessitate increased contributions.Finally, Kay Ingram, director of policy at LEBC( financial advisers)says,nationalisation without paying fair market value will result in every saver and pension scheme losing money. That could threaten the solvency of many DB schemes, putting the Pension Protection Fund under pressure.
As a diehard Corbynista, you can call it all the nonsense in the world, but it doesn't change anything. And, by the way, we haven't even started on the proposed 10% share grab that McDonnell proposes.
If you want to read some more, get yourself a copy of Saturday's Times and read an interesting article by Philip Aldrick pointing out what happened to the French economy when Mitterrand imposed his brand of socialism. The author reckons Britain would suffer an even worse fate under Labour!
A fellow like you wouldn't take any notice though, 'cos Corbyn and McDonnell can do no wrong...........It's all the media innit!

This the bit akin to the minimum wage "disaster" that the Tories banged on about when Labour introduced it. According to Tories it was going to bankrupt businesses and people would lose their jobs. The key is setting the right figure. Strangely, the Tories undervalued everything they sold off, with share price rising steeply immediately after the sell offs.

 

[lawros left foot]

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/11/corbyn-and-antisemitism.html

 

[Baldseagull]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I am pragmatic about such things, and see the logic in not taxing the wealthy to the point where they seek to leave your tax authority for another, but wouldn't it be nice if maybe some European wide organisation could create some level of minimum tax, maybe lean on tax havens, make them more open about who has large sums stashed away etc?

 

[Bakero]

I am pragmatic about such things, and see the logic in not taxing the wealthy to the point where they seek to leave your tax authority for another, but wouldn't it be nice if maybe some European wide organisation could create some level of minimum tax, maybe lean on tax havens, make them more open about who has large sums stashed away etc?

We can but dream.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

One of the most significant factors in helping the Tories achieve a majority would be a major increase in support for the Lib Dems compared to the last GE, splitting the opposition/remain vote ... happy campaigning

I am happy enough with my own minuscule efforts given that the LibDems are the most likely party to deny the particular gazillionaire chosen by your heroes to fight my local constituency.

As far as the situation in general is concerned, you may, everything else being equal, have a point and have highlighted the reason why BoJo & The Liars preferred an election to a referendum - it was less likely to accurately reflect Brexit views.

As a matter of interest are you doing any campaigning or are you just jeering on here?

 

[kemptown kid]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Argument by such homespun analogies is always flawed, but hey, ho let's go.

If each of your 10 drinkers earned a similar amount presumably they would all pay a similar amount of tax/ bar bill?

Under current arrangements one or two of your 10 consume a great deal more than the others and have managed to persuade many of them that this is some kind of law of nature and that they and their descendants should continue to enjoy their excess share for ever more.

 

[beorhthelm]

Under current arrangements one or two of your 10 consume a great deal more than the others and have managed to persuade many of them that this is some kind of law of nature and that they and their descendants should continue to enjoy their excess share for ever more.

it they consume more and pay for it, whats the problem? you need to work on it.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Hi Watford,
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Love the E-Type but I have to say, my favourite sporty Jag would probably be a British Racing Green XK140 Drophead Coupe with a lovely Walnut dash. I have coveted one of these ever since I was a young lad and used to see one that belonged to a lady who lived nearby. I used to park up my bike and just gaze in wonder through the window at the fabulous cockpit! No, I won't be splashing out, especially if Mr. Corbyn gets in!
P.S.I am no great fan of Johnson or JRM and especially not Cummings, whom I consider to be almost as distasteful as the odious Seamus Milne on the other side!

Always felt that the best one was the first one - the XK120 had sweeter, simpler detailing than the 140 and a bit less chrome. I'd die for either though.

One mid-June early evening about 30 years ago I was driving north along London Road in Brighton and met, coming south, an XK120C (the immortal C-type), a DB4 Zagato and an AC Cobra in convoy. I nearly crashed. Le Mans bound I guess.