Bullocks. It's describing the oligarchs who move to the UK (encouraged by your friends) but not feel the need to make a contribution to society
No - just those who don't make a contribution to society. That's a few people - judged by their actions - not a class of people many Of whom are innocent of any charge
On Jeremy Corbyn's proposal for rent curbs, Labour's general election co-ordinator Andrew Gwynne says that cities such as New York have rent controls "and if New York has them then London can have them".
I'm no expert but I'm fairly sure that New York's rent controls are not a good example.
Jeremy Corbyn unveils sweeping housing plans to end Britain's 'social cleansing' scandal
Whats not to like?
Discuss.
I am off to watch Jezza highlights over and over again till 2021/2
The way some Labour supporters condemned Jezza because of his past words and actions before the election, yet now support him, is both laughable and contemptible.
Discuss.
I am a Labour supporter of 40 years. My hero is Harold Wilson not Tony Blair. I opposed Corbyn before the election, and I oppose him even more now afterwards. He is an extremist and Labour has given itself to Stalinist cult of personality. He will destroy the Labour party, even more so if he ever gets his hands on power.
So was Hitler....his mob didn't like the Jews much either.
*Goodwin alert!*
Godwin, and that gag works well in response to, let's say, a complaint that the town council's decision to raise prices in the municipal car park is the sort of thing Hitler would have done. Less so when the rather narrower point is being made that express, unabashed anti-semitism is the same thing as express, unabashed anti-semitism.
No doubt there's another £100billion or so of spending to be announced yet.
What was the first £100 Bn over and above the fully costed manifesto.
Methinks its a fig box of your imagination
The student debt write-off was £100bn by itself.
Didnt promise that though as you well know
The Tories didn't promise £350m for the NHS either, and - one instance aside, I think - neither did the Leave campaign. No matter: the expectation is there.
DID THE TORIES PROMISE TO STEAL GRANNIES HOUSE!!!!
Now thats a great idea I seem to remember a lot on here arguing
Compare two frail grannies needing social care to get up, wash and dress every day.
One owns a £3 million house in London has £23,000 in cash savings and lives on a state pension. That granny worth over £3 million gets free home helps and social care off the council
Another rents a council flat but has £50,000 in savings she was left by a friend in their will and also lives on a state pension. She has to pay 100 per cent of the costs of her home help until her savings reach £23k.
So someone with assets worth 60 times as much pays nothing but the other granny pays the full cost.
That was the unfairness the Tories sought to address - and quite right too. Under their scheme the poorer granny pays nothing so keeps her modest savings and the much much richer granny pays full cost. Cos why should a house be treated differently to any other asset when like any other asset you can place a charge on it payable out of your estate after death? It also encourages richer granny to downsize as she is no worse off in terms of social care costs.
Of course no one really cares about granny - they just want all her money when she dies and expect the taxpayer to maximise their inheritance by funding her care.
Absolutely nothing in Corbyn's speech on how he will create a socialist Utopia which will go beyond even Attlee, on a level of personal income tax created by Margaret Thatcher and continued by Tony Blair. The money available to him will be no higher than the level of Corporation Tax under Gordon Brown. Corbyn is blatantly dishonest in building up such hopes on sand. Cults of personality and manias have a tendency to backfire onto its original recipent.
The triumph of Cake And Eat It in 2016 showed that there is no need for detail. You make promises and cry Project Fear when called out. If people want to believe you, they will.
No doubt there's another £100billion or so of spending to be announced yet.
What was the first £100 Bn over and above the fully costed manifesto.
Methinks its a fig box of your imagination
The student debt write-off was £100bn by itself.
Didnt promise that though as you well know
The Tories didn't promise £350m for the NHS either, and - one instance aside, I think - neither did the Leave campaign. No matter: the expectation is there.
DID THE TORIES PROMISE TO STEAL GRANNIES HOUSE!!!!
Now thats a great idea I seem to remember a lot on here arguing
Compare two frail grannies needing social care to get up, wash and dress every day.
One owns a £3 million house in London has £23,000 in cash savings and lives on a state pension. That granny worth over £3 million gets free home helps and social care off the council
Another rents a council flat but has £50,000 in savings she was left by a friend in their will and also lives on a state pension. She has to pay 100 per cent of the costs of her home help until her savings reach £23k.
So someone with assets worth 60 times as much pays nothing but the other granny pays the full cost.
That was the unfairness the Tories sought to address - and quite right too. Under their scheme the poorer granny pays nothing so keeps her modest savings and the much much richer granny pays full cost. Cos why should a house be treated differently to any other asset when like any other asset you can place a charge on it payable out of your estate after death? It also encourages richer granny to downsize as she is no worse off in terms of social care costs.
Of course no one really cares about granny - they just want all her money when she dies and expect the taxpayer to maximise their inheritance by funding her care.
Great policy I loved it myself.
BTW you dont understand the system. The 2 Grannys above would both pay Circa £43 contribution PW for Home Care (If they lived in Derbyshire at least). If they go to a care home its different obviously
Absolutely nothing in Corbyn's speech on how he will create a socialist Utopia which will go beyond even Attlee, on a level of personal income tax created by Margaret Thatcher and continued by Tony Blair. The money available to him will be no higher than the level of Corporation Tax under Gordon Brown. Corbyn is blatantly dishonest in building up such hopes on sand. Cults of personality and manias have a tendency to backfire onto its original recipent.
The triumph of Cake And Eat It in 2016 showed that there is no need for detail. You make promises and cry Project Fear when called out. If people want to believe you, they will.
Project Fear doesn't work anymore because it was exposed by events.
Lets remember what Project Fear promised:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
If Establishment Tories and the Treasury could be that wrong about the consequences of voting Leave why would they be right about the consequences of voting for Corbyn Labour ?
One more thing to remember: Corbyn and the Jezbollah have had an incredible run of luck, to end up where they are. From Jez becoming leader to TMay basically losing an unlosable election, every time the dice have fallen, remarkably, in his favour. This is partly because he is under-estimated as a campaigner, but mainly because of sheer dumb luck: he came along when lots of people fancied a bit of old geezer leftwingery in a vest.
This luck will run out. There are several huge obstacles coming down the road. Not the least of them is Brexit itself. Labour's divide is massive, but concealed. That cannot last.
Also, there's his horrible supporters. He really does have a crazy and unpleasant bunch of followers. At some point they will go too far.
And voters will simply tire of the vest.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Tories need to hold their nerve. It's Zulu all over again, and the mad, ululating fuzzy wuzzies might have the numbers, but the Tories have Martini-Henry rifles, if they can just remember how to use them.
There are few things more valuable than luck and few skills more useful than being able to make the most of your luck.
For example Thatcher was a very lucky politician and was so for many years.
But things can always change and at some point usually will.
One more thing to remember: Corbyn and the Jezbollah have had an incredible run of luck, to end up where they are. From Jez becoming leader to TMay basically losing an unlosable election, every time the dice have fallen, remarkably, in his favour. This is partly because he is under-estimated as a campaigner, but mainly because of sheer dumb luck: he came along when lots of people fancied a bit of old geezer leftwingery in a vest.
This luck will run out. There are several huge obstacles coming down the road. Not the least of them is Brexit itself. Labour's divide is massive, but concealed. That cannot last.
Also, there's his horrible supporters. He really does have a crazy and unpleasant bunch of followers. At some point they will go too far.
And voters will simply tire of the vest.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Tories need to hold their nerve. It's Zulu all over again, and the mad, ululating fuzzy wuzzies might have the numbers, but the Tories have Martini-Henry rifles, if they can just remember how to use them.
There are few things more valuable than luck and few skills more useful than being able to make the most of your luck.
For example Thatcher was a very lucky politician and was so for many years.
But things can always change and at some point usually will.
If you sit on the riverbank long enough eventually the bodies of your enemies float by. Alleged Chinese proverb.
Jezza should know! He's sat for over three decades waiting in hope.
However, it could be (and is far from unlikely if not certain of course) that the next election is four years eight and a bit months away. Go back in time the same amount to about the start of 2013, the Quad were running the country and Ed Milliband was pre bacon sandwich. If you'd have said that by Sep 2017, all four of the Quad would be out of Parliament, the Tories would've won and then lost a majority, we'd have voted to Leave, Jezza would be in the 40's in the polls and running the Labour Party to adoring acclaim, but six seats for Labour north of the border and half the Tory amount would be seen as a bit of a triumph, the Lib Dems would be lucky to get attention outside Vince's front room, Scotland would've voted in - just, Ed Balls would be famous for Gangnam Style, and the world would be worried about 280 characters on Twitter because it gave POTUS one D Trump more space to threaten nuclear spats with the newish N Korean leader, I'd suggest the men in white coats might've been summoned.
There's a lot of time and water that could yet flow either way. Jezza could get a landslide in six months or. Tory BAME or LGBT ( or both?) PM might yet triumph in 2022.
Comments
https://twitter.com/angelaormerod/status/913029715983785984
NEW THREAD
One owns a £3 million house in London has £23,000 in cash savings and lives on a state pension. That granny worth over £3 million gets free home helps and social care off the council
Another rents a council flat but has £50,000 in savings she was left by a friend in their will and also lives on a state pension. She has to pay 100 per cent of the costs of her home help until her savings reach £23k.
So someone with assets worth 60 times as much pays nothing but the other granny pays the full cost.
That was the unfairness the Tories sought to address - and quite right too. Under their scheme the poorer granny pays nothing so keeps her modest savings and the much much richer granny pays full cost. Cos why should a house be treated differently to any other asset when like any other asset you can place a charge on it payable out of your estate after death? It also encourages richer granny to downsize as she is no worse off in terms of social care costs.
Of course no one really cares about granny - they just want all her money when she dies and expect the taxpayer to maximise their inheritance by funding her care.
BTW you dont understand the system. The 2 Grannys above would both pay Circa £43 contribution PW for Home Care (If they lived in Derbyshire at least). If they go to a care home its different obviously
Lets remember what Project Fear promised:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
If Establishment Tories and the Treasury could be that wrong about the consequences of voting Leave why would they be right about the consequences of voting for Corbyn Labour ?
For example Thatcher was a very lucky politician and was so for many years.
But things can always change and at some point usually will.
Jezza should know! He's sat for over three decades waiting in hope.
However, it could be (and is far from unlikely if not certain of course) that the next election is four years eight and a bit months away. Go back in time the same amount to about the start of 2013, the Quad were running the country and Ed Milliband was pre bacon sandwich. If you'd have said that by Sep 2017, all four of the Quad would be out of Parliament, the Tories would've won and then lost a majority, we'd have voted to Leave, Jezza would be in the 40's in the polls and running the Labour Party to adoring acclaim, but six seats for Labour north of the border and half the Tory amount would be seen as a bit of a triumph, the Lib Dems would be lucky to get attention outside Vince's front room, Scotland would've voted in - just, Ed Balls would be famous for Gangnam Style, and the world would be worried about 280 characters on Twitter because it gave POTUS one D Trump more space to threaten nuclear spats with the newish N Korean leader, I'd suggest the men in white coats might've been summoned.
There's a lot of time and water that could yet flow either way. Jezza could get a landslide in six months or. Tory BAME or LGBT ( or both?) PM might yet triumph in 2022.