• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
People under £80K would only be better off for a very short while - most people are capable of wondering WTF is going to happen when the money runs out.

It's fairly simple to see what happened to Venezuela, East Germany, Russia, even North Korea and see that better off for a year or two doesn't really count for much.
Click to expand...

Why leave out China?

Without bothering to go into whether left-wing Labor has equivalence with 20th century Communism (it doesn't) it's just a case of where the financial burden lies. At the moment, those on sub-80k incomes spend a much greater % of their money on the state than those earning 80k+. So in crude terms, voting Labour for anyone who's earning less than 80k would seem to make sense as the burden would shift to the rich to pay more. That's why you hate Corbyn so much - you don't want to pay for the down at heel. What I don't get is why they don't want you to!

I take your point about uncontrolled spending, debt, and economic damage...but then you back Brexit and that is damaging to the economy. So you're not the rational actor your biases would have you believe.
 
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover said:
Then I intrigue you my dear friend. Because I am financially comfortable and am voting Labour this time.

I have not actually voted the same way in consecutive elections. Just like I butter and jam scones different ways each time.

Corbyn is far from perfect and I think this country is headed for financial problems. But all western countries are, look at France and the totally justified pension reforms.

I'm voting for a fairer country. I wish the was more in the manifestos about medical research and euthanasia but those are personal issues for me.

I kind of agree with @daz where is he these days? This country needs a 1946 style Labour government.

More house building and I would like to see vertical farms in every town. I'm voting for the party I consider most radical and most likely to achieve things I want. I doubt they would as is the nature of politics.

Still believe in a complete break from the EU, if I were prime minister we would come out on wto terms tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Of course I am intrigued by you. Yet I'm the same, I won't vote Conservative, despite them being the only party that represents me economically. There is selfless ethics and ideology behind Corbyn. It is both his appeal and what the Right dread. But fear not, you, I and Scara won't lose a penny because the establishment won't allow the national agenda to shift and uncover what it is he's offering! The people who'd benefit the most, the ex-miners and those who've suffered up norf won't vote for him because they voted Brexit and have to follow the simplistic get it dun.

Was the butter and scones a euphemism?
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Yeah. I dont follow convention I follow my own path.

I dont think northerners will vote conservative, May made that mistake.
Click to expand...

I like your style. Unfortunately or fortunately I think they will be voting quite heavily for tubby blond quiff.

If Corbyn was a shoo-in to win would we both back him still? Are we suckers for an underdog?

I live in such a strong Labour seat, it doesn't matter a hoot anyway.
 
Could Labour have attack Johnson more? For example, that he is using Brexit as a meal ticket. Boris' quotes show he's not staunchly anti-EU, he’s used Brexit to get into a job. The Boris Cummings duopoly is selling breixt oil to Labour voters. Does Boris care about delivering for them? No. Course not. It's just his way to power. And these Boris-voting Labour people also have no loyalty, they would turn as soon as Brexit is done, so why should Boris care about them?

Who's conning who?
 
Last edited:
Ex miners seems to be raising a lot of comments, how long ago was the last round of sizable pit closures?
20-30 years ago?
Time to move people.
 
Labour is proposing a big increase in spending on public services and social security, to be funded by higher taxes on companies and better-off workers, plus government borrowing.

It is also planning to take train companies, Royal Mail, the water industry, and the big six energy firms into public ownership - and part-privatise BT Openreach.

Speaking in London, Mr McDonnell said Labour's planned February Budget would mark "the date when almost ten years of cuts will come to an end".

He said: "In our first hundred days, we will start the process of bringing water and energy into public ownership.

"We'll set up boards to run them made up of you, the customer, and you, the worker, as well as representatives from local councils, metro mayors and others.

"We'll make sure decisions are taken locally by those who understand the services - those who use them and deliver them. Meetings will be public and streamed online with new transparency regulations set higher than ever before.

"So you can see if your road is being dug up, why, and for how long. And we'll create new People's Assemblies to hold these boards to account and give everyone the option of participating in how their utilities are run."

He also outlined Labour's plans to invest in green industries, skills training and regional development, attempting to reverse the decline of manufacturing and the growth of "dreary, exploitative, insecure and low-paid jobs".

'Destroying confidence'
He pledged that a National Transformation Fund Unit, based in the north of England, would be set up before Christmas.

His party also wants to set up a National Investment Bank - which also featured in the party's 2017 manifesto - which would have £250bn to lend, with a focus on small businesses whose work ties in to the government's industrial strategy.

Mr McDonnell defended his tax policy in the face of criticism from the telecoms tycoon John Caudwell, who said Labour's anti-billionaire rhetoric was "destroying confidence" and making wealthy people like him feel "almost like pariahs".

The Phones4u founder told Radio 4's Today programme that some within Labour "despised" success and its economic plans were driven by "envy", suggesting that droves of entrepreneurs would leave the country if Mr Corbyn won power.

In response, Mr McDonnell said his plans had been "exaggerated" by sections of the media.

While he hoped the rich accepted they had a social responsibility to address the UK's "grotesque" levels of inequality, it was in the end a "moral choice" whether they wanted to stay in the UK or leave, he added.
 
General election 2019: Will the parties pull off their experiments?
Laura Kuenssberg

Forget Brexit.

It may be the reason and the backdrop for this election, but aside from the central question, the results on Friday morning will yield the outcome of two big political experiments, set up by the political parties.

If either succeed, our politics will have changed profoundly.

First off, the Conservatives are trying to win in places where they have never won, or seats they haven't held for decades.

Under Boris Johnson they are trying to present themselves as a different political party - less bothered about the world view of the gin and Jag set in safe seats in Surrey, more worried about the concerns of people in working towns around the country.

Less parsimonious with public money, the promises go, but tougher on crime. More generous to the health service, they vow, but stricter on immigration.

It's an experiment because it gambles that voters in large parts of the country are ready to break tribal ties to the Labour Party.

It's a risk because it could push away traditional Conservative voters who feel uncomfortable with this brasher, more populist group.

A move to the Left
Labour is competing too on very different terms, offering a vision to the electorate of a much bigger government, a greater role for the state in expanded public services and intervention in markets.

A more generous version, not just of the welfare state, but taxpayer-funded provision of higher education, broadband, even visits to the dentist.

That comes with a hefty price tag, paid for mainly by a mix of higher taxes for the wealthy and business, and more borrowing.

It's an experiment because Labour moved to the left in 2015, but lost, moved further that way in 2017, and lost again. So will a diagnosis that says the route to victory is a stronger version be correct?

The Labour leadership believes it may well be, because the country has had nearly 10 years of a squeeze on public spending and the deep-seated problems of the country need a radical vision.

Austerity anger
Both parties face other big hurdles, though, not just because what they are trying to do is redraw the map.

Senior Conservatives know all too well that many voters are angry about how the squeeze on public spending has affected them since 2010.

Just because Mr Johnson tries all the time to dissociate himself with what went before, he can't.

The Tories have been in charge for nearly 10 years, and a lot of people have felt the consequences of the decisions they made.

Wages might be rising now and unemployment is low. But it doesn't feel like that to many people, and the Tories quite understandably can't escape all the political blame.

There is also, of course, the not insubstantial matter of the prime minister's slipperiness.

We've heard time and again around the country that people - even some of those who like him - often don't trust him.

In the campaign, for example, he is refusing to admit that his Brexit deal does involve extra checks for Northern Ireland, even though he acknowledged that back in October.

And there is a very long list of past comments that he has made that have caused real offence and worry to lots of different groups.

He's a politician who appears to enjoy controversy, but for many voters, he is just too casual with serious issues and, importantly, far too casual with the truth.

For Labour, plenty of its candidates say the hurdle is not the plan for policy, but the personality of the leader.

Time and again we've heard people express doubts about Jeremy Corbyn.

One candidate in a seat that has been drenched in red for decades tells me his voters have raised doubts about him five times more than they have mentioned Brexit.

He even quotes a letter he sent to constituents, outlining how he disagreed with the national leadership and he hadn't voted for Mr Corbyn himself.

"I did not nominate or vote for Jeremy Corbyn," it says. "I strongly disagree with the Labour leadership" on some issues, it continues, going on to say, "it is my name on the ballot paper, not Jeremy Corbyn's".

In that candidate's words, "How contorted is that?" But they tell me they are spending precious time and energy on the doorstep distancing themselves from the party leader.

Mr Corbyn does, of course, have an important constituency of devoted supporters, who are powerful campaigners on the ground.

But Labour's experiment of shifting further to the left is hampered by the leader who is trying to sell the vision.

The polls suggest right now that the Tories are the party with a chance of pulling off their experiment.

But it is impossible to be sure what is happening under the radar.

Win, lose or stumble, this is an election with profound consequences that could change the whole map for good.
 
THIS Friday the 13th could be the darkest day in British peacetime history if Jeremy Corbyn is ushered into No10.

The Sun believes a hard-left Corbyn premiership would crash the economy, leave us permanently shackled to the EU and lend succour to our enemies. But don’t just take our word for it.

Today we’ve assembled a panel of experts to forensically examine Corbyn’s record. Their verdict is utterly damning.

From further Brexit logjams and break-up of the Union, with two new referendums.

From soaring taxes and a bust economy to the stain of anti-Semitism and the threat to our national safety.

Here are the devastating verdicts from six experts . . .

Economy
By Robert Colville, Director of Centre for Policy Studies
THE most straightforward consequence of a Jeremy Corbyn Government is we’d all be paying more taxes. A lot more.

Labour tried to claim that only “the rich” and “the corporations” would pay. But even Corbyn has had to acknowledge that this was a lie.

In fact, the sheer scale of Labour’s planned spending and borrowing mean that we’ll all have to dip into our pockets — either immediately or when the borrowing bills come due.

The economy is also likely to take a sharp downturn.

Corbyn’s plans to tax business and high earners mean many of them will leave the country — indeed, they’ve already got their escape plans ready.

Because the Government is so reliant on taxing a few wealthy individuals, Labour would have to drastically rein in its planned spending, or tax those who do stay even more.

With higher taxes — not to mention Labour seizing ten per cent of most big companies, nationalising others and giving the unions far more power — life will get much tougher for businesses. Even if they don’t up and leave, they’re likely to create far fewer jobs.

NOT JUST RICH WHO'LL SUFFER
Labour’s extra spending might compensate for some of this by stimulating the economy in the short term.

But set against that will be the continued Brexit uncertainty as Corbyn negotiates his own deal and then either does or doesn’t back it in a second referendum.

It’s very hard to see who on earth would risk investing in Britain under those circumstances.

It would probably be a fairly miserable Christmas, too.

Exchange rates would likely fall sharply, making anything from overseas more expensive — and if you wanted to go on holiday you’d definitely need a larger wallet.

NOT ENOUGH JOBS
On top of all this, there’s the lurking threat of a full-on collapse.

Either as people with money try to flee the country and Labour tries to stop them — or if the bond markets start refusing to lend John McDonnell the hundreds of billions he will need.

In short, we might actually end up working a four-day week under Corbyn.

But only because there weren’t enough jobs to go round.

Brexit
By Liam Halligan, economist and broadcaster
JEREMY Corbyn is “neutral” on Brexit — the biggest issue the UK has faced in a generation. Yet his deliberately vague policy will leave Britain locked in EU exit paralysis.

Millions of voters won’t be neutral about that.

Labour claims it will “get Brexit sorted” in six months — negotiating a new deal with Brussels, to be put to another referendum.

Trying to have it both ways, Corbyn won’t tell us if Labour backs Leave or Remain.

Boris Johnson secured an “oven ready” exit deal. Corbyn reckons he can get a “much better” EU deal.

But if the Eurocrats know a new agreement would be followed by a referendum, with an option to Remain, they’d make sure it was utterly terrible for Britain.

UK IN LIMBO LAND
Then, both Leave and Remain voters would reject it — keeping Britain in and maintaining the annual flow of billions of pounds to Brussels. Brexiteers would then claim with the score at one-all, we need yet another Brexit referendum — the best of three!

If Mr Corbyn grabs power after doing a deal with Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon we would face a second referendum anyway — on Scottish independence! It would be chaos.

While our economy has held up quite well, the Brexit shenanigans of the past three years are now hitting growth and investment.

More months and years in limbo land — over Brexit, and the break-up of the UK itself — would leave Britain deep in the economic doldrums.

Defence
By Colonel Richard Kemp, Former Infantry Commander
NEVER in history has a more dangerous man been a contender for leadership of any Western democracy.

Corbyn has consistently sided with those that wish us harm. When IRA terrorists bombed the Cabinet at Brighton, his response was to invite two convicted volunteers of the murderous organisation to the House of Commons.

And when Russian assassins were sent on a murder mission to Salisbury, Corbyn failed to condemn the Kremlin and called for further proof of state-sponsored involvement.

He calls Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends” and appeared to take part in a ceremony honouring a terrorist involved in the Munich Olympics massacre.

He said the death of Bin Laden was a tragedy and wanted the leader of IS arrested not killed. The same with British jihadists Mohammed Emwazi and Sally-Anne Jones.

His deputies John McDonnell and Diane Abbott demanded the closure of MI5, the security agency that protects us from terrorists.

FRIEND OF HATE
With Corbyn as PM how could our allies trust us with their most sensitive secrets?

The US and Israel, vital sources of life-saving intelligence, have reluctantly drawn up plans to restrict co-operation in the event of a Corbyn premiership.

Corbyn has made it clear he would never press the nuclear trigger nor order troops into battle.

But credible deterrence is the best way to prevent conflict. Corbyn would subvert our military deterrence and endanger British lives.

Anti-Semitism
By Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle
YOU don’t need a crystal ball to see how a Corbyn government would behave towards Jews.

Just look at how it acts in opposition — and know that it will be much, much worse.

Last week, a chilling video emerged of Health Secretary Matt Hanrooster being jeered by Labour supporters at an Election hustings when he mentioned how sickened he was by the party’s refusal to deal with anti-Semitism.

The people jeering are the same people who buttress Mr Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party.

Instead of protecting its Jewish members from Labour racists, the party has refused to act against the racists and driven out many of the most prominent Jews.

In Labour now, Jews are hounded and attacked if they refuse to denounce Israel. They are regarded as beyond the pale.

JEWS IN ABSOLUTE FEAR
In opposition, the Corbynites’ malign influence only extends to the party. In government, it would be felt far beyond. We already know how foreign alliances would be changed.

Corbyn has praised as “friends” Hezbollah and Hamas — an organisation committed by charter to the extermination of every Jew on the planet. They will be welcomed as allies — another demonstration of Labour’s contempt for Jews.

To cap it all, we have seen in this election the so-called moderates’ embrace of Corbyn as they sniff power. Like all extremists, he will be enabled by the spineless, unprincipled careerists.

No wonder the vast majority of British Jews fear the prospect of a Corbyn government.
 
The Press
By Mick Hume, press freedom campaigner
GORMLESS Corbyn has said one clear thing during this election campaign. “I ask our media,” the Labour leader declared, “as good journalists, to just report what we say.”

Here’s the news, Mr Corbyn: in a free society, it is not the job of good journalists to “just report” what politicians say.

It is journalists’ job to question, challenge and even, when required, ridicule what you tell us.

Corbyn’s Labour are outraged by the freedom of the Press to ask awkward questions and reveal embarrassing truths.

Labour want to drag us through an unnecessary and expensive “Leveson II” inquiry into the media — another show trial in which popular news-papers such as The Sun would be found guilty before the start.

Corbyn would also implement Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.

LABOUR DECIDE WHAT YOU READ
This threatens newspapers with the prospect of punitive court fines and costs unless they sign up to the official regulator — Britain’s first state-backed press regulation in 325 years.

He even effectively wants to nationalise the news, with publicly-funded media outlets promoting “public interest” journalism.

That’s “public interest” as defined by the authorities, not the public.

In short, if you want to read Government-approved journalism in a state-sponsored media — vote Labour. No questions asked.

Transport
By Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK
A PATHOLOGICALLY anti-motorist political era will be marshalled in if Corbyn is elected.

Diverting scheduled road improvement funds to railways, for example, will fleece low-income drivers to pick up more of the tab for well-off suburban commuters, while cavernous potholes get even more perilous.

Corbyn’s plans to hit drivers with regular increases in fuel duty — amounting to a punitive 16p per litre hike — will cost White Van Man £1,000 more per year to fill up.

The cost of motoring levelled on the world’s highest-taxed drivers will skyrocket to help finance Labour’s trillion-pounds retrograde jamboree. It will restrict freedom of mobility and crash our post-Brexit economy.

The cash-hustling band of Left-wing reprobates just don’t get it.

The nine-year freeze in duty has never been a cost to the economy.

It generates extra tax revenue due to higher consumer spending, reduced distribution costs, more jobs, lower inflation, faster growing GDP and increased company profits.

Without that insightful Tory tax policy change to Labour’s 2010 fuel tax myopia, the price of filling up would now be a crippling £1.80 per litre, rising at seven per cent a year.

A thriving low-tax economy for everyone, under a Boris Johnson-lead majority administration, is the only solution.
 
You have to comfortably off to worry about a thing like the national debt.
We should all care more about the elderly and those needing help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back