www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38258976
Labour ended up in fourth place. Not a great surprise given the area, however I'm sure corbyn hoped that they could end in at least third place. I'm surprised how low the turnout was, just over a third. Although that's pretty typical for a by election i think.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 May 17 at 10:35
|
Even all those new Labour Party members seem to rather disenchanted with their leader. I found this remarkable fact about the Richmond result.
Christian Wolmar lost his deposit on the night, winning just 1,515 votes. The local constituency Labour Party claims to have more than 1,600 members.
|
>> Christian Wolmar lost his deposit on the night, winning just 1,515 votes. The local constituency
>> Labour Party claims to have more than 1,600 members.
>>
Chances are a third of them ain't old enough to vote yet.
|
Corbyn - the Tories' greatest asset.
Long May he stay leader.
|
He problaby will stay on until the next election could be early next year.
Can't say I'm fond of the Tories not a party to unite a nation.Brexit could be there downfall if they can't secure a decent deal leaving the E.U.
|
Seems to me that BREXIT was the single most divisive event in recent UK history. It wasn't aligned to any particular colour of politics and I don't think you can measure any party's success on how well they deliver it, as each person, let alone party, has their own idea of what successful BREXIT would look like.
Or maybe I'm wrong - so for instance - what would you consider to be a decent deal to leave the EU Dutchie, and how would any other party achieve it better than the current lot?
|
>>Seems to me that BREXIT was the single most divisive event in recent UK history. It wasn't aligned to any particular colour of politics <<
What I think it has done is fracture many of the internal coalitions that exist in the Tories and Labour, both with members and also voters as the old Left/Right divides have become less important. Apparently the rise of cultural issues over economics is playing a significant role in breaking down party loyalties too.
|
>> Can't say I'm fond of the Tories
>>
In England, there are four other major parties you can choose from - led by Corbyn, Farron, Nuttal, or Lucas. failing that, there is the monster raving loony or the "Maharaja Jammu And Kashmir One Love Party" candidate.
|
>>Corbyn - the Tories' greatest asset.
>>Long May he stay leader.
>> He probably will stay on until the next election could be early next year.
>>
A good prediction Dutchie.
It seems like Labour have all but given up re Corbyn
They cannot change his presentation " style" so just let him get on with it.
Today he was just ranting on in front of his fans.
They enjoyed the same sort of speech he has been pouring out for 30 years.
All very good but is he appealing to the electorate ? It appears not..
|
|
Potentially the LibDems could be big winners at this election potentially regaining the number of seats they had in the coalition years. There are lots of disillusioned Tories out there and as long as the LibDems stay in the middle ground they could have a good election.
|
I don't think the Lib Dems will do well out of this. Without checking, I'm pretty sure that it was in the south west the LDs lost many of their seats to the Conservatives, and their problem is those areas voted out of the EU. Those places candidates or parties who are remain will do well were mainly Labour held anyway, such as London. In fact the various pro EU parties like the LDs and the Greens could well end up taking votes off each other and leaving the door open to the Conservatives. Any hint of a coalition of opposition parties ganging up to keep the Tories out will not go down well with the electorate, they resented the SNP and some Labour candidates urging people to do that last time and it probably cost Labour a few seats in the north.
Not that they've learnt from it, Nicola the Bruce is spouting off along the same lines again this time.
|
I think that the Yellow Perils will do well. They will be the focus for remainers and will exploit that to the utmost.
I feel that UKIP will do less well, as for many of us, Brexit is a passion and only the Tories seem capable or willing to deliver it. Locally, I doubt we will run a candidate. Our well established MP, a Labour careerist, backed leave when, couple of weeks before the referendum he could see which way the wind was blowing. Our constituency voted leave by a big majority, thus proving his ability to trim his sails was at least on a par with the Vicar of Bray.
|
|
Are the yellow perils different to the purple plonkers?
|
Of course some people think Labour will win handsomely and that Jeremy will be the next P.M.
www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich-city-fan-who-bet-10k-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-win-general-election-is-completely-certain-of-labour-victory-1-5018196
"Normal for Norfolk" methinks.
Still what do I know. I put £100 on "Remain"
|
>> each person, let alone party, has their own idea of what successful BREXIT
Glad you said that. I spoke with a friend of mine, a Lib Dem party worker, who posed for posters supporting "remain" yet while casting her own vote, she voted for "leave". =:-0
Also, many of my friends who were "remainers" are no longer "remoaners" as they feel no good still opposing Brexit and will vote Conservative just to get a stable government and negotiate best deal possible with EU.
Some of them were previously Labour voters but won't be voting them anymore.
I am yet to see Conservative voters turned Labour supporter though.
Most UKIP voters will vote Conservative.
|
>> Not this one.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Strange, the Tories are delivering the only thing that UKIP ever stood for (past tense intentional).
|
|
Yes I can't think of any policy voiced by UKIP at the last election that would be reflected in the policies of Labour or the LibDems.
|
I'm struggling to think of many policies voiced by UKIP at all.
However, given that there were some, why are people stopping to vote for them now?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 15 May 17 at 21:08
|
>> I'm struggling to think of many policies voiced by UKIP at all.
A manifesto will presumably be published shortly.
So far Nuttal has committed (in TV interviews) to banning the Burka and Sharia 'courts'. For some reason his concerns about religious courts doesn't extend to the very similar institutions in Judaism.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 May 17 at 08:00
|
>>
>> However, given that there were some, why are people stopping to vote for them now?
>>
Because people don't just vote for the party that has policies they support, but the party closest to their views that stands a chance of getting elected.
Last time round, UKIP had an outside chance if not of winning, then of being a significant player in a coalition or a hung parliament. This time, they have no chance of achieving anything, so however strongly one agreed with their policies, they are a pointless option.
Like the Monster Raving Loony Party, only not funny.
|
>>Last time round, UKIP had ...........
Isn't that a bit circular? Last time they had a chance because people were voting for them so people voted for them, this time people are not voting for them so they don't have a chance so people aren't voting for them.
Still, as you say, like the Monster Raving Loony Party, only not funny.
If I had voted for them, I think I'd feel pretty disillusioned and let down.
|
>> Isn't that a bit circular? Last time they had a chance because people were voting
>> for them so people voted for them, this time people are not voting for them
>> so they don't have a chance so people aren't voting for them.
Voting intentions are always a bit circular. People form their impression of the way relative party support is shifting, whether via polls, news articles, conversations, or instinct, and make their voting decisions accordingly.
Not everyone, but the marginal voters who swing elections.
|
>> This time, they have no chance of achieving anything, so however strongly one agreed with their policies, they are a pointless option.
I'm leaning towards voting purple for the simple reason I have doubts about what tricks blue will get up to once they hold the fort for for the next five years, which may appear to be pointless but it's better (IMO) than not voting at all at all. I certainly wouldn't even consider voting for the reds or yellow ... or green :)
|
>> I'm leaning towards voting purple for the simple reason I have doubts about what tricks
>> blue will get up to once they hold the fort for for the next five
>> years,
Like what? You wanted Brexit, they're the only party who intend to deliver it. Indeed, they're the only party who *can* deliver it. I don't understand why you think voting UKIP will help achieve the thing you want?
|
>> I don't understand why you think voting UKIP will help achieve the thing you want?
Last week we each received a a letter addressed to us personally from Mother Theresa.
Today we've received another one so we're on first name terms already.
My heart is telling me to vote blue for the Brexit which I voted for last year, but my head is telling me, well hang on there woofers.
It appears that May will still have the key to number 10 come the 10th of June and the only question mark is if it will be a landslide for her or not.
May was a Remainer before she became PM. Hammond is a Remainer, as are many other blue politicians. If she does get a landslide there is more chance of Remainer MP's digging their heals in as to what sort of Brexit they want, ending up with something, like I said before, neither pleasing Europhiles or Brexiteers, so, if I vote purple I'll be sticking to my true colours whereas if I vote blue and it ends up like I think it could, I'll be rueing where I put my X.
|
>> May was a Remainer before she became PM. Hammond is a Remainer, as are many
>> other blue politicians. If she does get a landslide there is more chance of Remainer
>> MP's digging their heals in as to what sort of Brexit they want,
>>
I think the plan is that with a large majority the few remainers can be controlled by the majority who have accepter Brexit whether they wanted it last year or not
|
>> If she does get a landslide there is more chance of Remainer MP's digging their heals in as
>>to what sort of Brexit they want,
She's called the election in order to give herself a stronger majority in order to be able to negotiate more strongly with Brussels without having to listen to the whinging Soubries of this world.
I personally think you've got your arguments downsideup! Vote May for a better Brexit.
|
I think Dog is like me and a lot of other UKIP voters....he doesn't entirely trust her.
Pat
|
>>.he doesn't entirely trust her.
The political landscape is a it short of trustable politicians at the moment, and I particularly don't trust her.
However, I think she'll do a better job with a bigger majority, for a variety of reasons. Or at least, we'll end up with a better result.
Which makes it all a bit Hobson's, Her or nobody.
|
>> I think Dog is like me and a lot of other UKIP voters....he doesn't entirely
>> trust her.
>>
>> Pat
>>
I don't trust any politician. It's a case of choosing the best of a bad lot.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 16 May 17 at 17:26
|
>> I don't trust any politician. It's a case of choosing the best of a bad
>> lot.
>>
agreed
|
>>I think Dog is like me and a lot of other UKIP voters....he doesn't entirely trust her.
>>Pat
Fair enough, she's a politician. But:
1. A Tory party elected with a Brexit manifesto that didn't achieve Brexit would be killed in five years' time by the electorate. May wouldn't want to be remembered for destroying the party.
2. There are only two people who can be prime minister on 9th June. May or Corbyn. Corbyn's backbenchers are quite likely to prevent Brexit.
NoFM2R>> If I had voted for [UKIP], I think I'd feel pretty disillusioned and let down.
Really? I'd feel delighted. UKIP were there to achieve Brexit. They achieved it. Never has a political party achieved so much with so little. Not a single MP (or possibly one, I lost track...) Only a few voters. (Never has one achieved so much with so little *in a democracy* anyway. Putsches don't count.)
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 17 May 17 at 09:55
|
>>I personally think you've got your arguments downsideup!
NFC!
>>Vote May for a better Brexit.
I'll leave it to the last knockings before I/we fully make our minds up.
|
STOP PRESS
The ole woman - she no happy - likely not to vote blue now after their manni festo. Sez "she's worked and paid tax for 50 years and more-than a trifle miffed with wrinklies like her being picked on. We have no children and have never received any benefits - but happily helped towards the benefits others receive. They keep on that things are going to be bad - well they were bad in the late 80's and again in the mid 90's. Still paid taxes and never claimed any benefits. The young feel hard done by - well most of them don't start work at the age we did (so are not paying taxes until much later) and before the University tuition fees came in I (and every other tax payer) paid for their education. Some of which was essential and worthwhile (doctors, scientists, engineers etc). Some of which was for kids to have a jolly - media studies and drama. Yes the National Health service needs more money - but why do they think that is the only answer. They need to stop wasting money and become more organised and efficient. TM should not be thinking winning the election is a done deal, I know others of a certain age who feel the same way. And of course while everyone needs to pay a share it is yet again those that save and work hard that will lose out and people who don't who will reap the benefits and sometimes end up better off. Nothing changes".
Message ends.
|
I can only agree.
The rationale is that money is short and must be targeted. But to take £200-£300 from pensioners while taxes for the well off and corporation tax have been and are being reduced looks like blaming the poor again. Corbyn's proposal to take a similar amount on additional income tax from people earning c. £85,000 has been characterised as "war on the middle classes".
Our state pensions are still among the lowest in Europe. There was a rationale for the triple lock which was to move them, over a period of time, upwards to a level that would support the recipients in old age.
By removing the 2.5% floor, that policy of increasing pensions has been abandoned. But the link to earnings should at least peg it in comparative terms. The old link to RPI resulted in pensions falling compared with average earnings, never mind CPI which is typically 0.5%-0.7% lower.
I don't think the 2.5% floor will make much difference between now and 2020 anyway.
Conservatives, the party of the wealthy, behaving like Conservatives. No surprise there.
|
No it's not war on the middle classes, it's war on the wealth creators.
Why can't it be understood by the lefties is that if you increase the tax paid by the entrepreneurs who create businesses that employ people and pay corp tax, VAT etc then they are less entrepreneurial and employ fewer people and pay less corp tax, VAT etc.
It's simple.
Just like you cant have strong welfare and healthcare without a strong economy, though most Labour politicians are too blinkered or too indoctrinated or not able to understand, surely not the latter ... hmm
|
>> It's simple.
Not that simple.
Wealth is not created by the so called wealth creators. It all comes from land, natural resources and the people who do the work.
Stick your wealth creator in the middle of the Sahara desert on his own with all his capital and see how much wealth he creates.
The system in which all this wealth is created is the market, attenuated more or less by government. Without government, and taxes, all ordinary workers in an industrialised society without scarce skills would be almost permanently on the brink of starvation and effectively slaves to their employers. That is how markets work.
Trickle down does not work. Bubble up is what happens. It isn't due exclusively to the cleverness of the capitalist, it is mainly a function of his being the capitalist, because in the absence of a redistributive tax system or an element of philanthropy the capitalist always pays as little as possible for labour and keeps the profits.
Of course it is true that high marginal tax rates reduce incentives but this has to be balanced against not raising enough revenue and the negative effects of deficits on the economy. Until the 1970s, the top rate of income tax was 90%. It was 83% when Thatcher came to power, she started by reducing it to 60%. The basic rate was 33% which was reduced to 30%. There was an investment income surcharge which recognised the bias towards capital; it was removed. 40% was not always a high tax rate.
It is fatuous to suggest that 5% on income tax of 40% will stop people wanting to earn money either in wages, or as a return on capital. The top marginal personal tax rate in Sweden is c 60% IIRC. Of the G20, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Japan all have higher top tax rates than the UK.
We are a long way IMO from taxes being so high that modest increases to people who can well afford them will damage the economy. May's answer appears to be to claw back money from the people who have the least, not the ones who have the most.
Globalism has made all this even less simple, because we now have governments competing on tax rates, at the expense of their working citizens, to attract economic activity.
So it does merit thinking about. We should not waste money, or give it to people who don't need it. But we should not take it from the poorer to give to the richer. And a wealth tax on the estates of people who fall ill is despicable. Despicable.
|
>
>> give to the richer. And a wealth tax on the estates of people who fall
>> ill is despicable. Despicable.
As is your attempt to put such swing on it. Its not a wealth tax, it is merely making those who can afford to fund their own care, do so. The state can then provide care to those who can't.
And before you start going off on one, and saying thats what the welfare state was provided for, care of the elderly was never provided by the state historically, it was always done in the nucleus of the family. Now families are disparate, the elderly are living longer, the burden on the state has grown exponentially.
|
I thought you'd like that, yes I did get a bit carried away at the end but I don't think it will fly anyway. The Conservatives have a recent habit of announcing half-baked plans and this could be one of those.
I am rather cynical about the motive as well. The government has been unpopular with its pals in insurance now that the annuity racket has been torpedoed by Osborne. This will be a whole new opportunity for them, compulsory equity release.
|
The problem is that it is effectively a lottery. If you are worth £500,000 and need 4 years nursing care for Alzheimer's your estate will be docked £400,000. If you are "lucky" enough to die quickly from a heart attack your family will inherit the full £500,000. Surely what is needed is some sort of insurance whereby the cost of care is levied across everyone's estate.
Everyone pays something. No one loses everything.
|
>> Everyone pays something. No one loses everything.
Genius. You have just invented National Insurance. It's so obvious you wonder why they haven't done it:)
|
Well not quite but a similar principle. The levy or charge would be on the estate rather than income but would be the same for all.
I shall call it the Norwich plan. Any party feel free to adopt it.
|
>>
>> >> It's simple.
>>
>> Wealth is not created by the so called wealth creators. It all comes from land,
>> natural resources and the people who do the work.
>>
No, wealth is created by adding value, having the resourcefulness and industry to take some land, buy seed, crow crops, employ workers who can then feed their family ... ... ... ...
Welfare comes from taxing the above entrepreneur and his employees, tax too high and he is disincentivised so you actually get a reduced tax take, fewer jobs so more welfare demands and it all spirals downwards, the trick is balancing the tax rates and maintaining the incentive GO was getting that about right over the last few years.
>>
>> Without government, and taxes, all ordinary workers in an industrialised society without
>> scarce skills would be almost permanently on the brink of starvation and effectively slaves to their employers. That is how markets work.
>>
That's a very unfair take on employers though yes there need to be governance.
>> Of course it is true that high marginal tax rates reduce incentives but this has
>> to be balanced against not raising enough revenue and the negative effects of deficits on
>> the economy. >>
No, that's the wrong way around, the socialist assumption is that increasing taxes increases tax take, it doesn't as has been proven time over. Like I said above the trick is balancing the tax rates and maintain the incentive, it's like riding a wave, tax too low and revenues drop, tax to high and revenue drop, it's a fine line. And it's better to be, if anything, on the tax too low side of the wave because at least you are not disincentivising, reducing employment and increasing demands on welfare.
|
OK, let's all be capitalists and see how that goes:)
I referred already to the effect of changing tax rates on economic behaviour.
If you don't raise taxes you have to cut spending. Cutting government spending takes money out of the economy on a 1:1 basis and has a direct effect on GDP.
Increasing taxes has an effect on the taxpayer's ability to spend too. But taxing wealthy people does not tend to reduce their spending, it is more likely to reduce their saving. Conversely, leave money in poor people's pockets and they will usually spend it.
There is plenty of scope for higher taxation, as we will see after the election regardless of who wins.
|
>But taxing wealthy people does not tend to reduce their spending, it is more likely to reduce
>their saving.
No. It will usually impact their willingness to invest (spend) first. Typically a wealthy person's approach to saving is more rigid than simply putting away whatever he can afford this week.
But, perhaps, if he invests less his companies will create less jobs. So perhaps less wealthy people will be impacted. And they *will* save less.
Wealthy people pay more tax than less wealthy people. Seems just. If I earn more, I should pay more.
However, wealthy people typically pay a higher percentage of their income. Now, why is that?
Perhaps they can afford it, but still, why a higher percentage? Tax allowances make sense. For example, if it costs £20,000 to live, then nobody should pay tax on that. But on the income above that, why should one person pay a higher percentage than another?
Is the fact that they can afford it sufficient justification?
|
>> If you don't raise taxes you have to cut spending. Cutting government spending takes money
>> out of the economy on a 1:1 basis and has a direct effect on GDP.
>>
No you don't have to cut gov spending. In fact decreasing the marginal rate can increase tax revenues because it incentivises and encourages investment.
|
>> No you don't have to cut gov spending. In fact decreasing the marginal rate can
>> increase tax revenues because it incentivises and encourages investment.
That assertion is, at best, not proven. Economic growth increases tax take but the effect of marginal rates of tax is, at best, marginal.
Investment by the state, in the Keynesian sense, can also drive growth. One reason the post banking crisis recession carried on so long was that the incoming coalition in 2010 slashed capital spending on things like school improvement.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 May 17 at 08:57
|
>> That assertion is, at best, not proven. Economic growth increases tax take but the effect
>> of marginal rates of tax is, at best, marginal.
It is however accepted that increasing the upper rates of tax, can actually decrease the tax take. The only way to guarantee increased tax revenues is to raise the basic income tax rate and other unavoidable taxation and levies.
Which is what the Labour party always do when they realise that squeezing the rich wont pay for their profligacy. Blair knew it, Brown knew it but tried to deny it, Corbynistas dont get it.
|
"Conservatives, the party of the wealthy, behaving like Conservatives. No surprise there."
Yes - the Conservatives are are a very bad form of political party, but the others are so much worse.
Dreadful bad luck for the Labour party to be so useless at a time when they could have cleaned up.
|
Exactly where my thoughts have been going too.
Pat
|
>>
>> I personally think you've got your arguments downsideup! Vote May for a better Brexit.
>>
Exactly. It doesn't really matter whether she's entirely trustworthy on this point - she's got herself at the head of the bandwagon and if she tries to get off she'll be run over.
And she knows history is watching her.
|
|
I can't believe it. Some people voted to be dropped into the poo pit, and now they have a chance to vote for someone to transport them in the poo pit they are moaning about it.
|
No-one's moaning about it......we just don't trust her to take us properly into the poo pit.
I have a feeling once she's given a mandate she'll be more interested in hovering around the headland.
Pat
|
I think the GOF's are right ya know - we voted for Brexit, and won. Article 50 has been triggered and, as the man said earlier "Which makes it all a bit Hobson's, Her or nobody"
Nuff said.
|
|
At least, unlike the Remoaners and some deceitful MPs, Theresa May accepted the EU Referendum democratic majority decision and has embraced it ever since.
|
>> I'm struggling to think of many policies voiced by UKIP at all.
www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary
>> However, given that there were some, why are people stopping to vote for them now?
1. FPTP means they have no real chance of winning.
2. #1 means chance of Labour/LibDem winning due to vote distribution.
3. #2 means no Brexit
4. #3 means only Conservative majority is real choice.
2017 GE has just one aim - deliver a strong government so that negotiation with EU can proceed for UK's best interested without getting distracted by irrelevant political parties.
Not voting UKIP doesn't mean they are irrelevant or unloved. It just means making Labour weaker is a higher priority. Socialism doesn't work.
Last edited by: movilogo on Tue 16 May 17 at 11:04
|
I won't bee voting for either of those so that isn't a problem.
Pat
|
|
This forum has class. Rather than naff Brexit perhaps we should call it Brexodus.
|
Exodus suggests a mass movement of population, almost as if fleeing. It's too open to interpretation.
Are you suggesting ex-pats will be fleeing back to Britain?
Recent immigants to Britain to be expelled?
Remoaners to leave en masse in disgust?
It's not an exodus - it's a dignified cancellation of a parochial club membership that no longer suits our cosmopolitan interests.
It's a moving-on, neither an exit nor an exodus.
|
=> It's a moving-on, neither an exit nor an exodus.
An act of leaving a place: "he made a hasty exit from the room"
synonyms: departure · leaving · withdrawal · retirement · going
|
Assuming they get hammered at the polls, Corbyn hangs on with assistance from the Left-leaning unions / activists, and the party splits, what do we think the 'New' party will be called?
New Labour already tried, so that's gone away. Social Democrats (or a version of it last time the left split) swalled up by the Lib Dems, so that's gone too. Not-quite-so-left Labour? The Social-lites?
|
|
The Social Democratic Party in all likelihood. If we adopted proportional representation we migh even end up with a government which represented all of the population. That would be a novelty.
|
|
... and just imagine the lack of agreement and achievement that would bring about...
|
|
Yep - like in Scandinavia. Imagine living in a country like Sweden or Denmark. Must be terrible
|
I went on holiday to Scandinavia once. Never again. At least not until I go tee total.
Not entirely unexpected.... we packed suitcases full of wine in my ex FiL Disco and the ex negotiated free B & B in exchange for decent plonk as we toured round.
Quite the gal.
|
|
Might do you a bit of good though, easing up on the booze. It kind of creeps up on you and it doesn't do you a lot of good.
|
Wise words. I'm a very regular early doors social drinker...one of the 'problems' when you have a selection of good local pubs within a 20 minute walk. And a wide circle of similar friends.
Never touch a drop at home, despite a wide selection of spirits and wine bottles gathering dust. And when I go on my backpacking 'walkabout' trips the lack of alcohol doesn't bother me a jot.
A friend is having his stag do this Saturday afternoon in a very pleasant local market town....I shall be walking the hills as I hate drunkenness in any shape or form and the idea of being in the company of swaying inebriates Saturday evening is one I shall avoid at all costs.
Last edited by: legacylad on Wed 17 May 17 at 17:32
|
>> ... and just imagine the lack of agreement and achievement that would bring about...
>
Lack of Achievement? Yes excellent. that what we want. Few of us want stuff to change much, Successful and stable countries don't change much. The beauty of a hung or coalition government is they can't buck things up.
|
>> The Social Democratic Party in all likelihood.
That may be problematic as was name chosen by 'gang of four' in 1981 and Liberals probably own it. My guess would be something chosen for brand recognition as in France's 'En Marche'.
|
This should be compulsory watching before anybody is allowed near a polling station.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX-P4mx1FLU
Tony Benn explaining a few things.
|
Ah Tony Benn. Hypocrite extraordinaire.
All for the working classes and tax the rich.. except he ensured his estate paid little if any Capital Transfer Tax. on his death
A typical champagne socialist.
(His son is the same)
|
>> Ah Tony Benn. Hypocrite extraordinaire.
>> All for the working classes and tax the rich.. except he ensured his estate paid
>> little if any Capital Transfer Tax. on his death
>> A typical champagne socialist.
>> (His son is the same)
Your comments are just a smear. Do you not wnat to do the best for your children? Legitimate tax planning presumably.
I notice you have not taken issue with what he said.
Still, don't think, just vote Conservative.
|
>> Your comments are just a smear.
Usual right wing comment used against Socialists:
If poor they're jealous
If well off they're hypocrites.
|
|
benn and Skinner are probably the only completely principled MPs to appear in the last 50 years. Both completely crazy and wrong, but principled.
|
"Your comments are just a smear"
Since when have facts been a smear?
order-order.com/2016/04/07/hilary-benn-keeping-quiet-on-family-tax-avoidance/
Last edited by: madf on Thu 18 May 17 at 06:25
|
>> AND
>> www.claruswealth.co.uk/2014/11/tony-benn-his-strategy-for-inheritance-tax-reduction/
From what we have read in the National Newspapers, it would seem that far from Mr Benn carrying out aggressive tax avoidance, he (and his wife) carried out sensible and acceptable tax planning to reduce the impact of inheritance tax.
|
Which only proves that one man's tax avoidance is another man's "sensible and acceptable" tax planning.
The main question is not whether anything illegal or even naughty has been done it's whether someone's words match their deeds.
I rarely agreed with what Tony Benn said but I couldn't help liking him.
|
There have been some principled and likeable Labour politicians over the years, I quite like Hilary Benn, Jack Straw and Andy Burnham to name but two and Blair kind of got it I guess.
Though the problem is that the Tories are right, er that is, are correct and always have been correct, Cameron, Osbourne and May have driven the point home in recent years - you cannot have strong welfare and healthcare without a strong economy.
The economy has to be the focus and the ability to fund everything else will result.
It's like as individuals, the job has to be the focus and the ability to fund the holidays, cars, new kitchens etc will result.
|
|
Spot on Hard Cheese. And enough of the poorer and non-working classes recognise that to vote Conservative. Despite the 'inevitable' 'benefits cuts'...
|
Vote Conservative, be fracked!
"The discovery and extraction of shale gas in the United States has been a revolution. Gas
prices have fallen, driving growth in the American economy and pushing down prices
for consumers. The US has become less reliant on imported foreign energy and is more
secure as a result. And because shale is cleaner than coal, it can also help reduce carbon
emissions. We believe that shale energy has the potential to do the same thing in Britain,
and could play a crucial role in rebalancing our economy"
Of course the economy is more important than your home, health and even the odd earthquake!
|
>>
>> Of course the economy is more important than your home, health and even the odd
>> earthquake!
>>
So exactly what is it that threatens you home and health and causes earthquakes?
|
|
We ought to have a separate thread about energy but basically there is hardly any source which doesn't upset someone or other. There is now quite a wealth of info about the environmental impact of fracking so let's just hope they draw on that in the planning.
|
>> your home, health and even the odd
>> earthquake!
>>
Do you believe in fairy tales?
|
>> Do you believe in fairy tales?
The science is, at best, inconclusive:
www.livescience.com/34464-what-is-fracking.html
|
Earthquakes...
www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/
I am yet to be convinced that hydrogen gas in my water is good for my health...
www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/06/fracking
You try selling your house if there is a fracking well under it.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 18 May 17 at 17:14
|
>> www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/
>>
>> www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/06/fracking
>>
Damned by your own links.
Facts and Myths:
Earthquakes -
earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php
Water -
Hydraulic fracturing/fracking has little possibility of contaminating water supplies. In the US, where the EPA found evidence of contamination (in Dec 2016), they said "fracking usually occurs in rock formations thousands of feet below groundwater sources, however in some Western States fracking takes place in the same formation as drinking water."
As with any industrial process, accidents can occur. At risk would be shallow aquifers, and surface spills can potentially contaminate surface water.
>> You try selling your house if there is a fracking well under it.
>>
Houses at all these locations (just last fifty days worth) have become unsellable.
earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html
|
>> Houses at all these locations (just last fifty days worth) have become unsellable.
>> earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html
>>
Where does it say on that page that houses have become unsellable in those areas?
|
You put a high pressure hydraulic line several hundred meters under a street and it causes vibrations of small tremors then you can expect that house prices will at least suffer.
If an area is swamped by fleets of heavy vehicles moving pipes and equipment day after day night after night for weeks then you can expect house prices to suffer.
|
|
Goodness, have we become the Daily Mail all of a sudden? :-)
|
>> Houses at all these locations (just last fifty days worth) have become unsellable.
>> earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html
To be honest, Houses in the English Channel, Northern North Sea, Irish Sea, Southern North Sea, have always been slow sellers.
|
>> To be honest, Houses in the English Channel, Northern North Sea, Irish Sea, Southern North
>> Sea, have always been slow sellers.
Is that because to buy one you need really deep pockets?
|
>>As with any industrial process, accidents can occur. At risk would be shallow aquifers, and
>>surface spills can potentially contaminate surface water.
So that's alright then.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 19 May 17 at 08:38
|
We haven't had a single canvasser at the door yet with less than three weeks to go to the election. Neither have I seen one as I travel about for work. They were following each other down the street well before the local elections, it seems like they've lost interest.
How is it where you are?
|
Four election posters up our road. That's it.
We were a safe Labour seat in 1997. Now a safe Conservative one with a Minister (Karen Bradley ) as MP...I think she's rather good in a very low key way.
|
>> We were a safe Labour seat in 1997. Now a safe Conservative one with a
>> Minister (Karen Bradley ) as MP
Come off it.
Staffordshire Moorlands was a safe Tory seat that fell in Labour's 1997 landslide.
While Labour held it in 2005 it was by then close to being marginal and it's now reverted to type.
|
Nothing. Not even any leaflets unless the boss has intercepted them and sent them to recycling without passing GO.
Here in SW Herts it would probably be a waste of paper and shoe leather.
2015 results:
Conservative 32,608 56.9%
Labour 9,345 16.3%
UKIP 6,603 11.5%
Liberal Democrat 5,872 10.3%
Green Party 2,583 4.5%
Common Sense Party 256 0.4%
|
Can Labour survive Corbyn? - CGNorwich
