General Election 2017

[ManOfSussex]

Talk to Jezza nicely, you'll probably get a seat on the front bench!

If I get to have a selfie with him, I'll tell him you said 'Hi'.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Talk to Jezza nicely, you'll probably get a seat on the front bench!

But don't have your own views that he hasn't authorised if not he'll sack you!! It would appear you can only be one of the many, if you agree with Jezza!

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Not hard to grasp, surely?

The many refers to the mass membership of the Labour party.
The many refers to the huge number of people of all ages and backgrounds willing to work for Labour and be active in promoting change.
The many refers to the legion of younger people who voted for the first time, or switched, at the last election and voted Labour.

The interests of the many, not the few, will only be served by a Labour manifesto and by a Labour government.

It hard to grasp who the few refers to? Would that be the 42% who voted for the Tories. If so was it Diane Abbot who came up with that slogan. Are we to ignore the fact that 42% vote Tory and call them the few?

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

A lower percentage of tax to increase revenue has to rely on economic growth at a greater rate than the growth if you left the tax rate as it is. The tax revenue can look good for a short period during high growth, but that cannot be maintained mid to longer term. So ultimately, the short term economic gain of an investment boost through lower taxation cannot last indefinitely, so your tax revenue will reduce, hence we've missed every target in clearing the deficit. Had your theory worked, we would have a surplus budget by now and could be paying off the debt.

One of the key points in this strategy is immigration. You cannot have the economic growth that requires foreign investment, expansion etc. to increase your revenue above that at what it would have been at a higher tax rate without growing the population - hence immigration has grown year on year during austerity. The economic model simply doesn't work without this growth, the GDP growth required goes hand in hand with population growth.

But your argument his hypothetical that the growth in GDP between 2011/12 to now was due to tax cuts. If that growth would have occurred anyway, because we're a fantastic place to invest etc. then the tax revenue would have been far higher had a higher rate of tax been maintained. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the only way an economy grows is to lower taxes every couple of years? Its a regressive model that has no long term vision and ultimately, is almost like a pyramid scheme in that it looks great for a while, but ultimately you cannot magic growth from nowhere to cover your lost percentage points.

So on that basis, would the counter argument also be hypothetical that growth would have continues in the same way without the lower tax rate? The hard evidence in pound notes would suggest lower tax increases tax revenue. I suppose its all hypotherical and a matter of opinion, but if the hard evidence shows more income, why not continue in that way, until the revenue proves otherwise.

Off course there has to be a tipping point, where lowing the tax rate would lower the revenue, which maybe why they see the next step will down to 17%. I can't see how austerity and non skilled immigration can ever mix. People will point to the gap between rich and poor growing (which it also did under Labour) and that's fine, all the time the poor get richer as well and their standard of living raises. But with immigration as it is today, the poor will stay poor, all the time more and more poor arrive from across the globe. I my opinion its only when we close door to unskilled immigration that we can turn the deficit around. Controlled Immigration is good for this country. But uncontrolled is destroying us.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So on that basis, would the counter argument also be hypothetical that growth would have continues in the same way without the lower tax rate? The hard evidence in pound notes would suggest lower tax increases tax revenue. I suppose its all hypotherical and a matter of opinion, but if the hard evidence shows more income, why not continue in that way, until the revenue proves otherwise.

Off course there has to be a tipping point, where lowing the tax rate would lower the revenue, which maybe why they see the next step will down to 17%. I can't see how austerity and non skilled immigration can ever mix. People will point to the gap between rich and poor growing (which it also did under Labour) and that's fine, all the time the poor get richer as well and their standard of living raises. But with immigration as it is today, the poor will stay poor, all the time more and more poor arrive from across the globe. I my opinion its only when we close door to unskilled immigration that we can turn the deficit around. Controlled Immigration is good for this country. But uncontrolled is destroying us.

My point about immigration is it is linked to the economic growth and investment growth you need to increase revenue while cutting taxes. GDP is linked to population; more people more stuff, more taxes. If you want greater revenue through lower taxes to stimulate more growth, you have to accept immigration - honestly, this model doesn't work without population growth, it is why immigration still hasn't been cut, it is why the Tories were very careful not to make a promise on immigration numbers ahead of the election, they know the growth they need goes hand in hand with those coming in. You have to ask yourself, why the 50% immigration from outside the EU has not been controlled as you say? There is nothing to stop us controlling that side of the equation, we simply haven't - you have to ask why they haven't?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And low the messiah did arrive in Hastings .. to preach to the converted and after touching his blessed black cap and reading from the holy manifesto they went forth to spread the word

 

[Moshe Gariani]

And lo the Messiah did arrive in Hastings .. to preach to the converted and after touching his blessed black cap and reading from the holy manifesto they went forth to spread the word

I'll be disappointed if he doesn't lay on fish and chips for the crowd...

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I'll be disappointed if he doesn't lay on fish and chips for the crowd...

Ah yes the feeding of the 500. Probably get someone else to pay or put it on the credit card.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Ah yes the feeding of the 500. Probably get someone else to pay or put it on the credit card.

There'll be a lot more there than that tomorrow.

Even though she's never about, perhaps he could ask Amber Rudd to put it on her expenses as its her constituency? She likes putting things on expenses does Amber.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Ah yes the feeding of the 500. Probably get someone else to pay or put it on the credit card.

Does the tree not bring forth money....?

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Ah yes the feeding of the 500. Probably get someone else to pay or put it on the credit card.

Or send it to the nearest food bank so that nurses can go to work and not be hungry. Fool.

 

[Hastings gull]

Or send it to the nearest food bank so that nurses can go to work and not be hungry. Fool.

This one takes the biscuit, even by your tendency to exaggeration. So all nurses go to food banks do they? And then you call someone else a fool.

 

[Ernest]

Wow

[tweet]880569149835157504[/tweet]

 

[warmleyseagull]

So on that basis, would the counter argument also be hypothetical that growth would have continues in the same way without the lower tax rate? The hard evidence in pound notes would suggest lower tax increases tax revenue. I suppose its all hypotherical and a matter of opinion, but if the hard evidence shows more income, why not continue in that way, until the revenue proves otherwise.

Off course there has to be a tipping point, where lowing the tax rate would lower the revenue, which maybe why they see the next step will down to 17%. I can't see how austerity and non skilled immigration can ever mix. People will point to the gap between rich and poor growing (which it also did under Labour) and that's fine, all the time the poor get richer as well and their standard of living raises. But with immigration as it is today, the poor will stay poor, all the time more and more poor arrive from across the globe. I my opinion its only when we close door to unskilled immigration that we can turn the deficit around. Controlled Immigration is good for this country. But uncontrolled is destroying us.

Suggest you read David Murray's book The Strange Death of Europe. see reviews on http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-strange-death-of-europe-9781472942241/. I am broad-minded and generally pro immigration but have become uneasy about the ramifications for our society in decades to come of the high rates of immigration. The book is full of anecdotes, much of which frankly do not constitute an acedemic discourse, but intertwined with some arresting facts such as that in Belgium, Muslims will outnumber Christians within 20 years. Murray says the unsayable, read it whatever your views.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've just logged in, no mentions, no quotes, nothing, what gives!!?? **** the lot of yous.

(Early Friday Night Drinking Thread.....)

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

This one takes the biscuit, even by your tendency to exaggeration. So all nurses go to food banks do they? And then you call someone else a fool.

Good evening comrade, still talking crap then.

 

[Ernest]

[tweet]881081475084554244[/tweet]

 

[whitelion]

[tweet]881081475084554244[/tweet]

Looks like Warrior Square.

 

[neilbard]

[Tweet]881085960984952832[/Tweet]

 

[CHAPPERS]

I think Labour need to fix themselves up a bit. This seems a bit odd....

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1538..._vote_for_something_to_try_and_deselect_him_/