GENERAL ELECTION 2017 THREAD

Bruntonpasty wrote: Mr Corbyn can promise many, many things in his party's manifesto but, and here's the rub, do you believe]the Labour party under him can deliver what he promises? In general, I am sceptical about anything that politicians promise but this manifesto seems to be unrealistic in the extreme. So, do you believe that these promises are achievable? Can a labour government be trusted with the economy to deliver these promises? Me? Nah, no way!

You mean in the same way the current rabble have failed to deliver on their promises? They've performed so badly over the past 7 years that they've had to disavow most of their flagship policies (eradicate the deficit, £9 'living wage', immigration figures etc etc).

Marko, you talk like a giise shites.

Over 10 years, Russia has been 13%

The last three figures in the above table are current/highest/lowest




Russia Taxes Last Previous Highest Lowest Unit
Corporate Tax Rate 20.00 20.00 43.00 20.00 percent [+]
Personal Income Tax Rate 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 percent [+]
Sales Tax Rate 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 percent [+]
Social Security Rate 30.00 30.00 35.60 26.00 percent [+]
Social Security Rate For Companies 30.00 30.00 35.60 26.00 percent [+]
Social Security Rate For Employees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 percent [+]

Laffy wrote: I am in Magaluf on the lash-so far removed from this pish!

Can I say that as a failed Carlisle saviour?

Best place for it. When my wife saw we had an election she booked a villa in Mauritius for 2 months. Tories will get in, I'll moan like hell, she'll slag me off and the world will continue.

thesilentone wrote: Marko, you talk like a giise shites.

Over 10 years, Russia has been 13%

The last three figures in the above table are current/highest/lowest




Russia Taxes Last Previous Highest Lowest Unit
Corporate Tax Rate 20.00 20.00 43.00 20.00 percent [+]
Personal Income Tax Rate 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 percent [+]
Sales Tax Rate 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 percent [+]
Social Security Rate 30.00 30.00 35.60 26.00 percent [+]
Social Security Rate For Companies 30.00 30.00 35.60 26.00 percent [+]
Social Security Rate For Employees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 percent [+]

Go back and read the thread. The question was, 'does cutting income tax rates increase the overall (total, sum of, number of) pounds the Government receives? No it doesn't in Britain. God this is hard work

In Russia cutting the rate of tax did work because the structure of the economy is different. When the rate was reduced for example there were 250k Armenians registered in Moscow and Moscow Region, of those 16 paid tax. Cutting the rate, percentage charged, proportion of tax increased total revenue in Russia

Kangshung wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: Mr Corbyn can promise many, many things in his party's manifesto but, and here's the rub, do you believe]the Labour party under him can deliver what he promises? In general, I am sceptical about anything that politicians promise but this manifesto seems to be unrealistic in the extreme. So, do you believe that these promises are achievable? Can a labour government be trusted with the economy to deliver these promises? Me? Nah, no way!

You mean in the same way the current rabble have failed to deliver on their promises? They've performed so badly over the past 7 years that they've had to disavow most of their flagship policies (eradicate the deficit, £9 'living wage', immigration figures etc etc).

I'm asking whether you believe that Mr Corbyn and his cohorts can deliver the manifesto they are attempting to be elected upon? Do you believe they can? I don't, simple as that. Do I trust them with the economy? No. Do I believe they will get the best deal for the UK with regards to Brexit? No. Will Labour get control of immigration? Highly doubtful. Will they eradicate the deficit? are they even interested in eradicating the deficit? They may well increase the minimum wage/living wage. How will they pay for it all bearing in mind all the renationalisation projects? trident, which i believe they are to continue with? The Tories aren't perfect by any means, but for me, they are the lesser of two evils.

Laffy wrote: Correct-as for costing things,I 'costed' a new car the other day.I decided I couldn't afford it.

I can tell you now-most people out there will not pay 50pc tax-I would rather take a day off,do a bit of charity work,whatever.Happy to pay tax but I'm not flogging myself for 6 months of the year for nothing

I wouldn't mind paying 50% tax because it would mean I would be on a far bigger wedge than what I am on now

Laffy wrote: Hear hear Marko.I think our 2016 accounts are about to be filed so have a look-none of that filing in last day rubbish.

Brexit has been good for the industry with a weaker pound.More competitive for our European and American customer base

Aye, be sh*te for every f*cker else when inflation bites and interest rates start going up.

I'm alright Jack. Classic Tory.

...

Bruntonpasty wrote:

Kangshung wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: Mr Corbyn can promise many, many things in his party's manifesto but, and here's the rub, do you believe]the Labour party under him can deliver what he promises? In general, I am sceptical about anything that politicians promise but this manifesto seems to be unrealistic in the extreme. So, do you believe that these promises are achievable? Can a labour government be trusted with the economy to deliver these promises? Me? Nah, no way!

You mean in the same way the current rabble have failed to deliver on their promises? They've performed so badly over the past 7 years that they've had to disavow most of their flagship policies (eradicate the deficit, £9 'living wage', immigration figures etc etc).

I'm asking whether you believe that Mr Corbyn and his cohorts can deliver the manifesto they are attempting to be elected upon? Do you believe they can? I don't, simple as that. Do I trust them with the economy? No. Do I believe they will get the best deal for the UK with regards to Brexit? No. Will Labour get control of immigration? Highly doubtful. Will they eradicate the deficit? are they even interested in eradicating the deficit? They may well increase the minimum wage/living wage. How will they pay for it all bearing in mind all the renationalisation projects? trident, which i believe they are to continue with? The Tories aren't perfect by any means, but for me, they are the lesser of two evils.

Right Policies Wrong Personalities

The Best thing that could happen to Labour right now would be a Horrific crash involving that big red bus as i know there are Labour people who would take the edges off that Manifesto and would themselves be a hell of a lot more electable.

If you watched the news today you.ll see exactly what i predicted 6 months ago is starting to happen yes Corbyn has energised and activated a whole new bunch of Labour supporters but i.m afraid they are simply going to be made irrelevant by all these people youre seeing interviewed every day saying they've voted Labour all their lives but cant bring themselves to vote for Corbyn so theyre going to vote for May the problem is theyre so thick they cant see that they are the very people who are going to give her that majority and if they only stopped to think and voted tactically they can stop her if they realise that a vote for the Labour candidate or someone else for that matter isnt going to put Corbyn into power put could take away the wicked witches aspirations of a 100 seat majority that would see the end of the NHS as we know it and god knows what else.

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote:

Kangshung wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: Mr Corbyn can promise many, many things in his party's manifesto but, and here's the rub, do you believe]the Labour party under him can deliver what he promises? In general, I am sceptical about anything that politicians promise but this manifesto seems to be unrealistic in the extreme. So, do you believe that these promises are achievable? Can a labour government be trusted with the economy to deliver these promises? Me? Nah, no way!

You mean in the same way the current rabble have failed to deliver on their promises? They've performed so badly over the past 7 years that they've had to disavow most of their flagship policies (eradicate the deficit, £9 'living wage', immigration figures etc etc).

I'm asking whether you believe that Mr Corbyn and his cohorts can deliver the manifesto they are attempting to be elected upon? Do you believe they can? I don't, simple as that. Do I trust them with the economy? No. Do I believe they will get the best deal for the UK with regards to Brexit? No. Will Labour get control of immigration? Highly doubtful. Will they eradicate the deficit? are they even interested in eradicating the deficit? They may well increase the minimum wage/living wage. How will they pay for it all bearing in mind all the renationalisation projects? trident, which i believe they are to continue with? The Tories aren't perfect by any means, but for me, they are the lesser of two evils.

Right Policies Wrong Personalities

The Best thing that could happen to Labour right now would be a Horrific crash involving that big red bus as i know there are Labour people who would take the edges off that Manifesto and would themselves be a hell of a lot more electable.

If you watched the news today you.ll see exactly what i predicted 6 months ago is starting to happen yes Corbyn has energised and activated a whole new bunch of Labour supporters but i.m afraid they are simply going to be made irrelevant by all these people youre seeing interviewed every day saying they've voted Labour all their lives but cant bring themselves to vote for Corbyn so theyre going to vote for May the problem is theyre so thick they cant see that they are the very people who are going to give her that majority and if they only stopped to think and voted tactically they can stop her if they realise that a vote for the Labour candidate or someone else for that matter isnt going to put Corbyn into power put could take away the wicked witches aspirations of a 100 seat majority that would see the end of the NHS as we know it and god knows what else.

Thats what i dont understand Barry. How can comeone be a labour voter all their life but vote fu cking tory coz they dont like Corbyn. If you dont like him spoil your paper but dont vote fu cking tory. I dont like John Nixon but it doesnt mean im gonna watch Preston instead FFS.

Corbyn is like the Green Party on acid.

Labour is different now, they only seem to have an NHS attack weapon and nothing else.

I think everyone agrees higher earners should pay more tax but the hysteria kicked up by corbynites where people who have worked hard and achieved in life should pick up the pieces for people who don't work and can't be arsed to is absolute nonsense. If we over tax the people we need as a country we will lose them and we are in trouble.......yes we all have different upbringings and opportunities but you get what you put in.....

Happiest people in the world are the Scandinavians apparently, no mass emigration there and their tax rates are much higher than the UK.

With wealth and power comes responsibility. If you have workers who toil on the land then you have to look after them because it is thanks to them that you have what you have. You might have the smart ideas and negotiate the contracts but you can't do it all alone. Secondly it makes economic sense, if you don't look after your workers they won't work so your life will become worse. If we leave people to starve or die in hospital corridors they will respond by simply taking what they need, that will be worse for everyone. This Tory philosophy of greed is good and happiness equals pounds will not work because that is not how people think, the issues that affect lives are health, education and personal safety, decimate them and there will be a reaction. And we have money, the UK is something like the 5th largest economy in the world, it is not how we collect the money but the way we spend it, billions for Trident, Hinkley Point and £7bn for renovating the House of Commons but nothing for hospitals or schools? Really

Markovitch wrote: Happiest people in the world are the Scandinavians apparently, no mass emigration there and their tax rates are much higher than the UK.

Emigration, no. Immigration, a failed project...

www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/how-sweden-b...-handle-immigration/

DB said- "Thats what i dont understand Barry. How can comeone be a labour voter all their life but vote fu cking tory coz they dont like Corbyn. If you dont like him spoil your paper but dont vote fu cking tory. I dont like John Nixon but it doesnt mean im gonna watch Preston instead FFS."


Good point, however it go's to show voting is no longer a birth legacy. We all voted the way of our parents did, and them before us, however that is over, other than in some hard-line areas who suffered during the miners strikes.

Jezza is simply the excuse people wanted to do something they probably wanted to do years ago.

I have said on many occasions - Jezza is the figure-head who has not voted for his own party on many occasions, the man who is on a mission (in his head) that is greater than winning a General Election. and the man who is in the pockets of the Unions who cannot be trusted with a bent nail.

The recent Labour manifesto has some great policies, pretty well thought out, however they require a certain financial environment to work. No one has answered what happens if that environment changes.

Tax the rich is doomed to fail, let the rich pay more? The answers are, they are already taxed more, and they already pay more.

thesilentone wrote: DB said- "Thats what i dont understand Barry. How can comeone be a labour voter all their life but vote fu cking tory coz they dont like Corbyn. If you dont like him spoil your paper but dont vote fu cking tory. I dont like John Nixon but it doesnt mean im gonna watch Preston instead FFS."


Good point, however it go's to show voting is no longer a birth legacy. We all voted the way of our parents did, and them before us, however that is over, other than in some hard-line areas who suffered during the miners strikes.

Jezza is simply the excuse people wanted to do something they probably wanted to do years ago.

I have said on many occasions - Jezza is the figure-head who has not voted for his own party on many occasions, the man who is on a mission (in his head) that is greater than winning a General Election. and the man who is in the pockets of the Unions who cannot be trusted with a bent nail.

The recent Labour manifesto has some great policies, pretty well thought out, however they require a certain financial environment to work. No one has answered what happens if that environment changes.

Tax the rich is doomed to fail, let the rich pay more? The answers are, they are already taxed more, and they already pay more.

I can see what youre getting at here but if on day one of a Labour government they went out at borrowed a sum equal to our current borrowings at the virtually nil current rate of interest,paid off the existing higher interest loans with the money saved you could virtually fund the labour manifesto with the sayings in interest due overnight.

The borrowings v the health and size of our economy is low based on other EU Countries. In addition, a fair chunk is hedged off to Ireland.

Labour and SNP voters blast Tories 'greed'. Tory voters blast Labours 'spend, spend, spend' approach. Nothing ever changes - just a different cast saying the same things. Tribal warfare without the warfare bit. Id never vote 'xxxx' - half the time people dont know why except for nonsensical tribal reasons.

In the real world - most people like bits of both.

I like the idea to re-nationalise some key infrastructure, some things shouldn't be run for profit and in my view that includes rail, gas/electricity and water networks. I also like Corbyns attempt to crack down on the 'elites run everything' situation.

On the other hand his answer to everything seems to just be - SPEND! Not sure thats a great way forward as we clearly dont have the money and im not a fan of simply throwing money at every problem even if we did. Also hes a weak leader, his cabinet is full of cretins like Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry and i i dont trust him on defence at all.

The biggest issue i have with Corybn though is he would be a disaster for brexit whereas May is going about that in the right way. Hence why i am most likely to vote Tory and wouldnt consider voting Labour even though i like some of what they say. None of the other parties can be trusted nor are up to the job of negotiating a successful brexit. I suspect many others feel the same. Corbyns Mr. Nice approach isnt going to get us anywhere on that front. We need someone tough.

The Labour Party would bankrupt the Country, which they have done several times before, the Tories balance the books, and p everyone of in the feather bedded public sector.

Labour get power and bankrupt the Country, the Tories balance the books and p everyone off in the feather bedded public sector.....etcetcetcetcetcetcetec

Always been the way in my lifetime, the only concept Jezza hasn't grasped is, you can't change anything unless your in power.............

Blues86 wrote: Labour and SNP voters blast Tories 'greed'. Tory voters blast Labours 'spend, spend, spend' approach. Nothing ever changes - just a different cast saying the same things. Tribal warfare without the warfare bit. Id never vote 'xxxx' - half the time people dont know why except for nonsensical tribal reasons.

In the real world - most people like bits of both.

I like the idea to re-nationalise some key infrastructure, some things shouldn't be run for profit and in my view that includes rail, gas/electricity and water networks. I also like Corbyns attempt to crack down on the 'elites run everything' situation.

On the other hand his answer to everything seems to just be - SPEND! Not sure thats a great way forward as we clearly dont have the money and im not a fan of simply throwing money at every problem. I am also not convinced that he really wants to change much re: the structure of how the world is really run, hes a weak leader, his cabinet is full of cretins like Diane Abbott and Thornberry and i i dont trust him on defence at all.

The biggest issue i have with Corybn though is he would be a disaster for brexit whereas May is going about that in the right way. Hence why i am most likely to vote Tory and wouldnt consider voting Labour even though i like some of what they say. None of the other parties can be trusted nor are up to the job of negotiating a successful brexit. I suspect many others feel the same. Corbyns Mr. Nice approach isnt going to get us anywhere on that front. We need someone tough.

When you did into it its a lot cleverer than it looks the re nationalisations wont cost very much at all as far as rail goes they.ll just wait for the franchises to expire or in the cases of say Southern just invoke the clauses and call them in. As far as Gas and Electricity are concerned as i understand it they will set up not for profit companies offering the product well below what the existing companies are and let market forces deal with it The distribution networks are in meltdown anyway and would probably appreciate a govmt buy out that just leaves to find a way of getting rid of the water companies which shouldnt be too difficult and hey presto its all safely back in private ownership for minimal cost.

Blues86 wrote: Labour and SNP voters blast Tories 'greed'. Tory voters blast Labours 'spend, spend, spend' approach. Nothing ever changes - just a different cast saying the same things. Tribal warfare without the warfare bit. Id never vote 'xxxx' - half the time people dont know why except for nonsensical tribal reasons.

In the real world - most people like bits of both.

I like the idea to re-nationalise some key infrastructure, some things shouldn't be run for profit and in my view that includes rail, gas/electricity and water networks. I also like Corbyns attempt to crack down on the 'elites run everything' situation.

On the other hand his answer to everything seems to just be - SPEND! Not sure thats a great way forward as we clearly dont have the money and im not a fan of simply throwing money at every problem even if we did. Also hes a weak leader, his cabinet is full of cretins like Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry and i i dont trust him on defence at all.

The biggest issue i have with Corybn though is he would be a disaster for brexit whereas May is going about that in the right way. Hence why i am most likely to vote Tory and wouldnt consider voting Labour even though i like some of what they say. None of the other parties can be trusted nor are up to the job of negotiating a successful brexit. I suspect many others feel the same. Corbyns Mr. Nice approach isnt going to get us anywhere on that front. We need someone tough.

I see your point about flip flopping between parties and I've no prob with that if that's what you do. It's the people who've voted a particular way their whole life changing their mind because they don't like a party leader that does my head in. I'll be voting for Sue Haymon anyway not whoever the party leader is.

As a floating voter, for me Corbyn's personality is much less of a turn-off than the likes of Ed Miliband, Harriet Harperson, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and whatever other plastic Millbank Blair disciples were up for the leadership last time.

I think it's possibly harder for Labour to find a credible leader these days than it is for the Tories. People expect Tories to be aloof and smarmy so it doesn't matter when their leader fits that stereotype. Recent Labour leadership candidates, Corbyn apart, have struggled to come across as authentic, especially to their traditional support base. They need to find a Macron from somewhere.

That said, while there are many appealing policies in the Labour manifesto, it is Corbyn's weak stance on immigration, Brexit and defence that puts me off.

At least Corbyns believes what he says and says what he believes, I like that even if I dont always agree with him. The likes of Balls and Cooper will say anything if they think itll get them elected.

If Corbyn wasnt so worried about the remain metropolitan vote and was stronger on immigration and defence as well as being as tough as May on brexit he'd be in with a real chance. But he shoots himself in the foot on those issues. Along with not being able to reign in the spend, spend, spend labour reflex and thats why he's likely to lose.

Hm, I suppose time will tell but Theresa May was a strong remain supporter and now she is too scared to debate her policies on TV. Corbyn however regularly disobeyed the Labour Whip to stand up for his beliefs

She was for remain - but not strongly. She pretty much kept out of it and was MIA from the whole thing as she realised it wouldnt do her any good to come out strongly for remain, whichever way the vote went. As it happens shes now PM so that tactic has proven to be an effective one.

And regardless of whether she backed remain or not - she is now taking a strong approach to brexit and thats exactly what we need if its to be successful. I do not trust Corbyn, first of all not to try and back out of the whole thing with some kind of lib dem style sham second referendum, and secondly to be able to negotiate and not just cave in to whatever the EU demands. As i said - hes too Mr Nice. We need a leader who is prepared to tell them where to go if required in order to get the best deal. I think a lot of Labour voters will vote Tory in this election for exactly that reason.

Its shame because i think Corbyn is genuinely pro-brexit. He just cant come out and back it because his party is so against it and the metropolitan vote that he wants to win is also against it. He should be more Tony Benn/Bob Crow and less Blair/Mandleson on this. More criticising the EU's rampant pro big business pro elitism stance and less waffle about the spirit of fraternity and cooperation. May has a free ride as she is the only leader of a major party who is backing a strong brexit. Its an open goal for her.

Blues86 wrote: She was for remain - but not strongly. She pretty much kept out of it and was MIA from the whole thing as she realised it wouldnt do her any good to come out strongly for remain, whichever way the vote went. As it happens shes now PM so that tactic has proven to be an effective one.

And regardless of whether she backed remain or not - she is now taking a strong approach to brexit and thats exactly what we need if its to be successful. I do not trust Corbyn, first of all not to try and back out of the whole thing with some kind of lib dem style sham second referendum, and secondly to be able to negotiate and not just cave in to whatever the EU demands. As i said - hes too Mr Nice. We need a leader who is prepared to tell them where to go if required in order to get the best deal. I think a lot of Labour voters will vote Tory in this election for exactly that reason.

Its shame because i think Corbyn is genuinely pro-brexit. He just cant come out and back it because his party is so against it and the metropolitan vote that he wants to win is also against it. He should be more Tony Benn/Bob Crow and less Blair/Mandleson on this. More criticising the EU's rampant pro big business pro elitism stance and less waffle about the spirit of fraternity and cooperation. May has a free ride as she is the only leader of a major party who is backing a strong brexit. Its an open goal for her.

You have absolutely no evidence of that. A load of bluster, inflated rhetoric, and the odd catchy slogan does not equate to a strong approach.

Blues86 wrote: She was for remain - but not strongly. She pretty much kept out of it and was MIA from the whole thing as she realised it wouldnt do her any good to come out strongly for remain, whichever way the vote went. As it happens shes now PM so that tactic has proven to be an effective one.

And regardless of whether she backed remain or not - she is now taking a strong approach to brexit and thats exactly what we need if its to be successful. I do not trust Corbyn, first of all not to try and back out of the whole thing with some kind of lib dem style sham second referendum, and secondly to be able to negotiate and not just cave in to whatever the EU demands. As i said - hes too Mr Nice. We need a leader who is prepared to tell them where to go if required in order to get the best deal. I think a lot of Labour voters will vote Tory in this election for exactly that reason.

Its shame because i think Corbyn is genuinely pro-brexit. He just cant come out and back it because his party is so against it and the metropolitan vote that he wants to win is also against it. He should be more Tony Benn/Bob Crow and less Blair/Mandleson on this. More criticising the EU's rampant pro big business pro elitism stance and less waffle about the spirit of fraternity and cooperation. May has a free ride as she is the only leader of a major party who is backing a strong brexit. Its an open goal for her.

If only there was a party with Corbyns manifesto who wanted to send the migrants and refugees home keep trident and fund it all by telling the EU to go and whistle for its 100 million quid

Kangshung wrote:

Blues86 wrote: She was for remain - but not strongly. She pretty much kept out of it and was MIA from the whole thing as she realised it wouldnt do her any good to come out strongly for remain, whichever way the vote went. As it happens shes now PM so that tactic has proven to be an effective one.

And regardless of whether she backed remain or not - she is now taking a strong approach to brexit and thats exactly what we need if its to be successful. I do not trust Corbyn, first of all not to try and back out of the whole thing with some kind of lib dem style sham second referendum, and secondly to be able to negotiate and not just cave in to whatever the EU demands. As i said - hes too Mr Nice. We need a leader who is prepared to tell them where to go if required in order to get the best deal. I think a lot of Labour voters will vote Tory in this election for exactly that reason.

Its shame because i think Corbyn is genuinely pro-brexit. He just cant come out and back it because his party is so against it and the metropolitan vote that he wants to win is also against it. He should be more Tony Benn/Bob Crow and less Blair/Mandleson on this. More criticising the EU's rampant pro big business pro elitism stance and less waffle about the spirit of fraternity and cooperation. May has a free ride as she is the only leader of a major party who is backing a strong brexit. Its an open goal for her.

You have absolutely no evidence of that. A load of bluster, inflated rhetoric, and the odd catchy slogan does not equate to a strong approach.

What i meant by strong approach is that she is not going for the 'soft' (read we dont really leave) brexit as pushed for by Labour and the Lib Dems. She and Davis are clearly willing to stand up to the EU and not just let them have it all their own way.

The £100 billion bill - they have said straight away we wont be paying anywhere near that. Freedom of movement continuing has been categorically ruled out. The ECJ continuing to have jurisdiction over Britain has been ruled out. Offering EU citizens continued rights when they are not yet willing to do so for UK citizens has been ruled out. Saying that, ultimately, we are prepared to accept no deal and just walk away if we think the deal on offer isnt a good one. They are all pretty strong moves compared to the Labour/Lib Dem - "What would you like us to do?" bend over for the EU approach.

Whether that carries on after the election or if they soften remains to be seen. Softening the approach might be a worthwhile negotiating tactic eventually. But at least they are prepared to appear strong when we need to be. The EU isnt going to just hand us what we want on a silver platter and thank us for leaving.

Gosh, well lets hope those stiff Tory upper lips get a better Brexit deal than the one they negotiated with Google who settled for 3% annual corporation tax rate for 10 years. Or Starbucks who paid slightly more but got it all paid back or Amazon who have never paid a penny. Facebook paid £4300, tough those Tory negotiators eh? Hundreds of millions of advertising revenue and £4300? The EU must be quaking. Still George Osborne led the negotiations so there isn't anything about the vagaries of offshore tax he hasn't avoided

A laughing stock the Italians called us!!

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news...-italy-a6838586.html

Not sure what Georoge Osbourne negotiated tax deals have to do with brexit negotiations? He was fervently pro remain and is not even an MP anymore.

We're going to walk away from the EU with no deal because May is a pig-headed b*tch. The sooner they accept that and crack on with ruining the country the better, then the process of rebuilding can start sooner.

And we'd be better off not wasting money negotiating. Use it to prop up the economy and soften the blow.

Markovitch wrote: Hm, I suppose time will tell but Theresa May was a strong remain supporter and now she is too scared to debate her policies on TV. Corbyn however regularly disobeyed the Labour Whip to stand up for his beliefs

To be fair, Corbyn has been anti EU for virtually his whole political life and then supported remain for political gain during the referendum. that isn't exactly standing up for your beliefs is it? Even now he won't answer questions on the TV about his position on the EU honestly. If he came out and said I bloody hate the EU personally but my party wanted to remain in the EU, then fair enough. The reality is that despite the media spin JC is exactly the same as other politicians. This whole rubbish about being an honest man of integrity is BS. I bought into that until the point that he doctored his own shadow defence secretaries party Congress speech, about 2 minutes before he went on stage, to shove in his own bit about Trident. He didn't even tell the bloke... the first he knew was when he read it off the autocue... apparently he was utterly furious afterwards. How is the for honesty and integrity? Stitching a senior colleague up in public. Not to mention him pretending he couldn't find a seat on a half empty train for political gain. When he was a backbencher and had no real consequences for sticking to his own view then he probably did have integrity... since he became leader he has shown that is now BS. He is just like the rest of them... only scruffier.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Markovitch wrote: Gosh, well lets hope those stiff Tory upper lips get a better Brexit deal than the one they negotiated with Google who settled for 3% annual corporation tax rate for 10 years. Or Starbucks who paid slightly more but got it all paid back or Amazon who have never paid a penny. Facebook paid £4300, tough those Tory negotiators eh? Hundreds of millions of advertising revenue and £4300? The EU must be quaking. Still George Osborne led the negotiations so there isn't anything about the vagaries of offshore tax he hasn't avoided

A laughing stock the Italians called us!!

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news...-italy-a6838586.html

____________________________________

Marko... how much tax had those companies you mentioned paid per year under a Labour government... let's compare the figures for context?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

2015/16 figures.

Basic salary for an MP was £74,962.

Declared expenses/income? £253,034.

On 20th November 2016 he made a claim for 38p.

Ever see him out and about? He takes credit for the Skills Fair - which has been running for years anyway - and managed to persuade companies to give him £10,000 towards it.

Change is needed, but the Tories Social Care Policy is shite.........

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online. A step closer to 1984

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets...?cmpid=facebook-post

Well now all the manifestos have been published im jumping ship and giving Labour my backing .
The tories raid on the elderly is a step too far .

Alan wrote: Well now all the manifestos have been published im jumping ship and giving Labour my backing .
The tories raid on the elderly is a step too far .

They'll come for everyone who doesn't deserve it, one step at a time. Each time they'll do just enough to keep the people happy who they aren't coming for so the "I'm alright Jacks" will give them enough votes to keep them in power.

Certainly a cracking set pf policies, take away winter fuel allowance and potentially other benefits like free TV licence, remove the mandatory annual pension increase and make you refinance your house to pay for care. So people who paid NI all their working lives then can't use the NHS in their old age, they have to sell their houses. I bet there are pensioners who will still vote for them though

Keep shaking that money tree Marko

The problem is the lack of cash and in an ideal world, you would in invest in the young rather than old.We also know NIC is just tax-it's got nothing to do with pensions or care or NHS.

I shoot with a few guys who get winter fuel allowance and the standing joke is that they use it to fill their Range Rovers-that is just plain wrong.

I do disagree with tuition fees but the evidence suggests it doesn't make much difference to the demographics.

Im glad they are going to means test the winter fuel allowance. Why should you be given a big handout every winter just because you are 64/65+ no matter how wealthy you are? But if you're young and therefore more likely to be on a low wage, you get nothing. Giving money to people who dont need it and shafting those who do. Yeh thats fair isnt it? Well over due.

We all know that pensioners are gifted a lot, and have been for decades, by all parties, because they are more likely to vote. Dont bite the hand that feeds you i guess. All this worked hard all your lives etc. Flip that over, if you have worked hard all your lives then you are more likely to have a) a more generous pension that the current generation, b) a mortgage free home and c) life savings. Therefore these people are more likely to be better off that the average 20/30 something who is still working up the payscale, has much smaller if any savings and is paying a bigger mortgage compared to what house prices were 20-30 years ago.

I dont get this idea that pensioners are all penniless old women freezing to death because they cant pay their gas bill. Everybody wants to help those types, thats not an issue. But the facts are most retirees/pensioners are quite well off. The average retiree income is £18,100 a year. That would be £36,200 a year per couple. With no mortgage to pay in most cases and thats not taking into account any savings they have. Hardly scraping by is it?!

Blues86 wrote: Im glad they are going to means test the winter fuel allowance. Why should you be given a big handout every winter just because you are 64/65+ no matter how wealthy you are? But if you're young and therefore more likely to be on a low wage, you get nothing. Giving money to people who dont need it and shafting those who do. Yeh thats fair isnt it? Well over due.

We all know that pensioners are gifted a lot, and have been for decades, by all parties, because they are more likely to vote. Dont bite the hand that feeds you i guess. All this worked hard all your lives etc. Flip that over, if you have worked hard all your lives then you are more likely to have a) a more generous pension that the current generation, b) a mortgage free home and c) life savings. Therefore these people are more likely to be better off that the average 20/30 something who is still working up the payscale, has much smaller if any savings and is paying a bigger mortgage compared to what house prices were 20-30 years ago.

I dont get this idea that pensioners are all penniless old women freezing to death because they cant pay their gas bill. Everybody wants to help those types, thats not an issue. But the facts are most retirees/pensioners are quite well off. The average retiree income is £18,100 a year. That would be £36,200 a year per couple. With no mortgage to pay in most cases and thats not taking into account any savings they have. Hardly scraping by is it?!

I know a lot of people will disagree but I think that the DLA/PIP should be means tested too, I have heard of millionaires who claim for it out of principal as they are allowed it and many see it as a poke back at the government for all the taxes that they pay.

Don't know how they can live with their consciences as because of their greed and selfishness someone down the chain loses out because of lack of cash.

munchymagic wrote:

Blues86 wrote: Im glad they are going to means test the winter fuel allowance. Why should you be given a big handout every winter just because you are 64/65+ no matter how wealthy you are? But if you're young and therefore more likely to be on a low wage, you get nothing. Giving money to people who dont need it and shafting those who do. Yeh thats fair isnt it? Well over due.

We all know that pensioners are gifted a lot, and have been for decades, by all parties, because they are more likely to vote. Dont bite the hand that feeds you i guess. All this worked hard all your lives etc. Flip that over, if you have worked hard all your lives then you are more likely to have a) a more generous pension that the current generation, b) a mortgage free home and c) life savings. Therefore these people are more likely to be better off that the average 20/30 something who is still working up the payscale, has much smaller if any savings and is paying a bigger mortgage compared to what house prices were 20-30 years ago.

I dont get this idea that pensioners are all penniless old women freezing to death because they cant pay their gas bill. Everybody wants to help those types, thats not an issue. But the facts are most retirees/pensioners are quite well off. The average retiree income is £18,100 a year. That would be £36,200 a year per couple. With no mortgage to pay in most cases and thats not taking into account any savings they have. Hardly scraping by is it?!

I know a lot of people will disagree but I think that the DLA/PIP should be means tested too, I have heard of millionaires who claim for it out of principal as they are allowed it and many see it as a poke back at the government for all the taxes that they pay.

Don't know how they can live with their consciences as because of their greed and selfishness someone down the chain loses out because of lack of cash.

Means testing all benefits would be a damm good start

Why the hell do you need to pay familiy allowance [ or whatever they call it nowadays ] to a woman whos husband works and earns 250k

Laffy wrote: Keep shaking that money tree Marko

The problem is the lack of cash and in an ideal world, you would in invest in the young rather than old.We also know NIC is just tax-it's got nothing to do with pensions or care or NHS.

I shoot with a few guys who get winter fuel allowance and the standing joke is that they use it to fill their Range Rovers-that is just plain wrong.

I do disagree with tuition fees but the evidence suggests it doesn't make much difference to the demographics.

Capital gains tax cuts for the 6% that pay that tax, £250bn for missiles that don't work, £6bn to renovate Parliament, £4bn to renovate Buckingham Palace, £2m gift to Rees Mogg to renovate his personal castle, £6m to subsidise the Westminster canteen. The money exists, the Tories just choose to spend it on other things.

We fund an elephant orphanage in Sri Lanka and I took the kids there a couple of weeks ago so they got to splash water on baby elephants and feed them milk. We and a couple of other donors went out because we got our 100th elephant. I came back and discovered that May in her manifesto will re legalise the import of ivory into Britain. So what is the economic prerogative for that? How do you tell an 8 year old that those animals are in danger again so people can have shiny ash trays or elephant foot umbrella stands?

Its just evil, nothing more. I actually think David Icke is right, she is a lizard because a human being would never make those decisions, cuts to hospices, respite centres, payments to orphans, heating allowance. Benefits sanctioning actually costs the country £125m according to the National Audit Office so why do we have money for that? If its all about money why is that a thing?

Markovitch wrote: I actually think David Icke is right

You've just destroyed any argument you ever had on here with that short statement!

He came out with all that stuff about child sex rings in the 90s and that all turned out to be true. Some of the things that are happening at the moment, Theresa May being a lizard is one of the most believable. People in Glasgow living on £100 a month voting Tory, I must of been off school the day we did this

Was Icke into wearing purple crimpolene?

Does that protect you from the lizard people?

Well he seems to be into anti Semitism and holocaust denial.

Worth watching Denial with Timothy Spall-fantastic performance.

Markovitch wrote:

Laffy wrote: Keep shaking that money tree Marko

The problem is the lack of cash and in an ideal world, you would in invest in the young rather than old.We also know NIC is just tax-it's got nothing to do with pensions or care or NHS.

I shoot with a few guys who get winter fuel allowance and the standing joke is that they use it to fill their Range Rovers-that is just plain wrong.

I do disagree with tuition fees but the evidence suggests it doesn't make much difference to the demographics.

Capital gains tax cuts for the 6% that pay that tax, £250bn for missiles that don't work, £6bn to renovate Parliament, £4bn to renovate Buckingham Palace, £2m gift to Rees Mogg to renovate his personal castle, £6m to subsidise the Westminster canteen. The money exists, the Tories just choose to spend it on other things.

We fund an elephant orphanage in Sri Lanka and I took the kids there a couple of weeks ago so they got to splash water on baby elephants and feed them milk. We and a couple of other donors went out because we got our 100th elephant. I came back and discovered that May in her manifesto will re legalise the import of ivory into Britain. So what is the economic prerogative for that? How do you tell an 8 year old that those animals are in danger again so people can have shiny ash trays or elephant foot umbrella stands?

Its just evil, nothing more. I actually think David Icke is right, she is a lizard because a human being would never make those decisions, cuts to hospices, respite centres, payments to orphans, heating allowance. Benefits sanctioning actually costs the country £125m according to the National Audit Office so why do we have money for that? If its all about money why is that a thing?

I feel a strong sense of deja vu here. The Trident missile system has worked in 95% of test firings. So yeh - 'it doesn't work'.

The Buckingham Palace renovation is costing £370m, nowhere near your figure of £4 billion.

And Buckingham Palace and the House of Parliament are national assets. And they are falling apart. What do you propose we do - let them fall into ruin? These are Grade I listed buildings that are part of our cultural heritage. The Scottish Parliament cost $414 million ten years ago and that was a new build. It also costs £72 million a year in maintenance and running costs. Are you against this also? Is that different because its Scotland?

Im against subsidising Westminster's canteen - completely agree. MP's get paid enough that they can pay a fair price for food/drink. Its a disgrace quite frankly. Strange however that you make no mention of the generous subsidies that the Scottish Parliament canteen and bar receives. Why have you omitted that from your criticism? What about the £125,000 new bar they built in 2012 and then tried to keep secret by banning any pictures being taken of it? No mention also of the £250,000 per year that the NI assembly receives in canteen subsidy's either. Interesting that you only focus on Westminster based greed and not the rest of the UK, who are also at it. And im assuming that, out of principal, none of the 56 SNP MP's eat/drink at any of these subsidised Westminister bars/restaurants?