Labour's proposals to tax dividends at income tax rates will hit many ordinary self employed people who runs their businesses as limited companies and whose total income is well below £80,000. It will also hit many pensioners who rely on dividend income. CCHQ should be all over this proposal and relentlessly highlight its impact.
When you say 'hit' you mean it will stop them dodging tax like they do now.
That's bollocks. If you run a small business you take huge risks. The taxman chases every thing these days and like any other business, dividends are allowed out of profits.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
I'm not sure "they'll vote for someone I don't like!" Is a valid reason to deny somebody the vote.
It doesn't seem the parties take QT very seriously these days. 3 weeks to an election an the Tories have Robert Jenrick (whom 99% of the public will have no idea who he is), Labour Richard Burgon...only the (il)liberal (non)democrats have put somebody who isn't a total moron.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
And you wonder why the Lib Dems are sinking without trace despite every opportunity offered to them...
Why should you take tax revenue without offering people the opportunity for representation? I’m actually not sure if that is the lib dem view but is definitely the the labour view. It’s not offered reciprocally but it may be if the UK moved.
Does that also mean taking the vote away from those who don't pay tax?
Only those not subject to PAYE or self assessment if you don’t earn enough but subject yourself to assessment fair enough you are entitled to vote
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
Oh what a shame. I was looking forward to many more totally crap debates like Tuesday's.
Was it any good? I meant to watch it but I ended up cutting verrucas out of my feet whilst watching Chris Stuckman review "Frozen ll". I now have less painful feet and know Olaf is a one-film character. So all in all, I made the right decision.
I think the only thing I know is that it was on the set of Tron Legacy...
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
So it’s down to money then this right to vote thingy? Turn up for next to no time pay income tax get to vote. Nothing to do with an equality of citizenship.
Why not put a turnstile in the voting booths and charge a fiver a go?
This is going to get crucified the more folk hear about it.
Labour's proposals to tax dividends at income tax rates will hit many ordinary self employed people who runs their businesses as limited companies and whose total income is well below £80,000. It will also hit many pensioners who rely on dividend income. CCHQ should be all over this proposal and relentlessly highlight its impact.
When you say 'hit' you mean it will stop them dodging tax like they do now.
That's bollocks. If you run a small business you take huge risks. The taxman chases every thing these days and like any other business, dividends are allowed out of profits.
Fair enough when it a genuine business. Not when it is an IR35 tax-dodge.
Its not as if the Prime Minister might be a little bit busy with other committments now is it?
David Cameron managed them.
The Cameron direct things he did were probably the best PR move he ever made. People gave him a lot of credit for doing them, and in a way getting a shouty heckler played right into this hands.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
If you change the voting qualification from citizenship to tax paying, you open up a whole can of worms.
Should a millionaire paying 100k in tax a year have ten times the votes of someone paying 10k in tax? What about someone who pays no tax at all, because they are on benefits?
Citizenship = equality.
Not at all who is suggesting an income based vote? It’s just that no taxation without representation did modify history a tad!
Oh what a shame. I was looking forward to many more totally crap debates like Tuesday's.
Was it any good? I meant to watch it but I ended up cutting verrucas out of my feet whilst watching Chris Stuckman review "Frozen ll". I now have less painful feet and know Olaf is a one-film character. So all in all, I made the right decision.
I think the only thing I know is that it was on the set of Tron Legacy...
No Frozen 2 spoilers, OK.
I can spoil The Mandalorian for you instead if you like?
Labour's proposals to tax dividends at income tax rates will hit many ordinary self employed people who runs their businesses as limited companies and whose total income is well below £80,000. It will also hit many pensioners who rely on dividend income. CCHQ should be all over this proposal and relentlessly highlight its impact.
When you say 'hit' you mean it will stop them dodging tax like they do now.
That's bollocks. If you run a small business you take huge risks. The taxman chases every thing these days and like any other business, dividends are allowed out of profits.
Fair enough when it a genuine business. Not when it is an IR35 tax-dodge.
The change to dividend taxation in 2016 pretty much evened out the take a salary/take a dividend calculation in terms of tax/NI paid.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
If they have been paying tax for years then they can acquire citizenship. So what's the issue?
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
So why does someone just off the plane from Malta get a vote, but not an Austrian resident for decades. Why a Mozambiquan just arrived but not a Filipino Nuse here for years.
Oh what a shame. I was looking forward to many more totally crap debates like Tuesday's.
Was it any good? I meant to watch it but I ended up cutting verrucas out of my feet whilst watching Chris Stuckman review "Frozen ll". I now have less painful feet and know Olaf is a one-film character. So all in all, I made the right decision.
I think the only thing I know is that it was on the set of Tron Legacy...
No Frozen 2 spoilers, OK.
I can spoil The Mandalorian for you instead if you like?
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
So why does someone just off the plane from Malta get a vote, but not an Austrian resident for decades. Why a Mozambiquan just arrived but not a Filipino Nuse here for years.
Fair enough. Remove the right from all of them except UK citizens.
The way in which the promise of Blair’s first term was squandered first by timidity then by hubris is a key story of our times.
My guess is that the Bozo Tories will go the same way as recent Republication presidents (not just Trumpy) in trading on their supposed greater economic competence to get elected and then borrowing more and spending more and generally being more economically reckless than their opponents could ever get away with.
Indeed, the huge spending of the Republican controlled Senate and Congress under George W Bush from 2000 to 2006 isn't often mentioned but it was backed by the usual absurd tax cut for the wealthy.
Johnson has the advantage of historically low interest rates but the fact remains the deficit will accumulate the debt, the interest on which has to be serviced both now and by future generations.
It's disappointing to see all parties (and I include the LDs) abandoning the notions of sound finance in favour of reckless populist spending commitments.
The problem with this election (and it is unique in this regard) is that it's about Brexit and Corbyn - next time round, both will be in the past and we can have a proper debate about the future of the country.
Labour's proposals to tax dividends at income tax rates will hit many ordinary self employed people who runs their businesses as limited companies and whose total income is well below £80,000. It will also hit many pensioners who rely on dividend income. CCHQ should be all over this proposal and relentlessly highlight its impact.
When you say 'hit' you mean it will stop them dodging tax like they do now.
That's bollocks. If you run a small business you take huge risks. The taxman chases every thing these days and like any other business, dividends are allowed out of profits.
Fair enough when it a genuine business. Not when it is an IR35 tax-dodge.
which are being clamped down in the private sector too from April anyway and in some cases are seeing a handful of my clients retire rather than adjust to the new requirements.
The Factcheck literally said CCHQ and labourmanifesto.co.uk literally says on its second line in big text "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"
No, it said FactCheck UK. Their display name did not mention the Conservative party in any way. That is why twitter told them not to do it again under threat of suspension.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
So it’s down to money then this right to vote thingy? Turn up for next to no time pay income tax get to vote. Nothing to do with an equality of citizenship.
Why not put a turnstile in the voting booths and charge a fiver a go?
This is going to get crucified the more folk hear about it.
If you register for uk income tax and are liable for it, regardless of what you earn you should have a say in how it is spent. What’s the problem?
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
So why does someone just off the plane from Malta get a vote, but not an Austrian resident for decades. Why a Mozambiquan just arrived but not a Filipino Nuse here for years.
Don't Commonwealth citizens have to establish residency first before being eligible to vote - so not straight off the plane?
Just walked in to lounge where wife had C4 news on - looked like a 'vox pop' and lady said she felt Corbyn won the debate, bloke next to her said the polls don't agree and her response was something like...
'well the polling companies are owned by the same people as the media who are all getting rich off Tory policies so given that'....
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
So it’s down to money then this right to vote thingy? Turn up for next to no time pay income tax get to vote. Nothing to do with an equality of citizenship.
Why not put a turnstile in the voting booths and charge a fiver a go?
This is going to get crucified the more folk hear about it.
If you register for uk income tax and are liable for it, regardless of what you earn you should have a say in how it is spent. What’s the problem?
Because citizenship is too valuable to be given away at that price. So people who've paid £5 worth of income tax suddenly get to vote for Corbyn's trillion-pound giveaways? That's insane.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
So it’s down to money then this right to vote thingy? Turn up for next to no time pay income tax get to vote. Nothing to do with an equality of citizenship.
Why not put a turnstile in the voting booths and charge a fiver a go?
This is going to get crucified the more folk hear about it.
If you register for uk income tax and are liable for it, regardless of what you earn you should have a say in how it is spent. What’s the problem?
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
So it’s down to money then this right to vote thingy? Turn up for next to no time pay income tax get to vote. Nothing to do with an equality of citizenship.
Why not put a turnstile in the voting booths and charge a fiver a go?
This is going to get crucified the more folk hear about it.
If you register for uk income tax and are liable for it, regardless of what you earn you should have a say in how it is spent. What’s the problem?
Dear God. There’s no point. Just let the votes ebb away.
The Factcheck literally said CCHQ and labourmanifesto.co.uk literally says on its second line in big text "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"
No, it said FactCheck UK. Their display name did not mention the Conservative party in any way. That is why twitter told them not to do it again under threat of suspension.
These random people surely know better than Twitter, we've "had enough of experts" after all
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
So why does someone just off the plane from Malta get a vote, but not an Austrian resident for decades. Why a Mozambiquan just arrived but not a Filipino Nuse here for years.
What prevented the "Austrian resident for decades" from getting citizenship?
Just walked in to lounge where wife had C4 news on - looked like a 'vox pop' and lady said she felt Corbyn won the debate, bloke next to her said the polls don't agree and her response was something like...
'well the polling companies are owned by the same people as the media who are all getting rich off Tory policies so given that'....
walked back out
I am sure the end of that sentence probably finished that it had something or other to do with the Jews.....
The Factcheck literally said CCHQ and labourmanifesto.co.uk literally says on its second line in big text "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"
No, it said FactCheck UK. Their display name did not mention the Conservative party in any way. That is why twitter told them not to do it again under threat of suspension.
Not the name but it said CCHQ in the graphics, in the description and on the handle.
The Factcheck literally said CCHQ and labourmanifesto.co.uk literally says on its second line in big text "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"
No, it said FactCheck UK. Their display name did not mention the Conservative party in any way. That is why twitter told them not to do it again under threat of suspension.
You are confused. Manifesto site and Factcheck site are two different things. Manifesto clearly says Conservatives.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
So why does someone just off the plane from Malta get a vote, but not an Austrian resident for decades. Why a Mozambiquan just arrived but not a Filipino Nuse here for years.
What prevented the "Austrian resident for decades" from getting citizenship?
The electoral roll could be and should be streamlined.
Voting should be restricted to any male head of a household with a hearth big enough to boil a wallop.
Labour's proposals to tax dividends at income tax rates will hit many ordinary self employed people who runs their businesses as limited companies and whose total income is well below £80,000. It will also hit many pensioners who rely on dividend income. CCHQ should be all over this proposal and relentlessly highlight its impact.
When you say 'hit' you mean it will stop them dodging tax like they do now.
That's bollocks. If you run a small business you take huge risks. The taxman chases every thing these days and like any other business, dividends are allowed out of profits.
Fair enough when it a genuine business. Not when it is an IR35 tax-dodge.
You omitted to address the situation for the many pensioners that depend on dividend income to supplement their pensions. Presumably you are not too bothered about them because they probably vote Tory in any case.
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
So, I got to Barcelona. I pay a tourist tax.
I suddenly get the right to vote in elections in Barcelona.
Don’t be fucking stupid, the UK have taken the tax revenue from immigrants for years, failed to use it to invest in the services that the increased population need and then turn round and blame immigrants for all our problems. They took the cash to spend on things they wanted, if they pay income tax they should have a say in how it is spent. There is no counter argument that makes sense, what is so special about ‘real citizens’ only having a vote?
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
So why does someone just off the plane from Malta get a vote, but not an Austrian resident for decades. Why a Mozambiquan just arrived but not a Filipino Nuse here for years.
Fair enough. Remove the right from all of them except UK citizens.
You are on a hiding to nothing no on wants rationale argument as long as Johnny foreigners don’t get a say
Just walked in to lounge where wife had C4 news on - looked like a 'vox pop' and lady said she felt Corbyn won the debate, bloke next to her said the polls don't agree and her response was something like...
'well the polling companies are owned by the same people as the media who are all getting rich off Tory policies so given that'....
walked back out
I am sure the end of that sentence probably finished that it had something or other to do with the Jews.....
Alex and Bibi can share a cell and swap stories about their best friend who will soon be joining them.
Alex and Bibi are best friends with Boris? I can see Boris playing the Norman Stanley Fletcher role, although I am pretty sure the Porridge story lines never featured misconduct in public office.
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
Just checking, are 'qualifying' Commonwealth citizens from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada,Cyprus1 Dominica, Fiji Islands, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadies, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, The Gambia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia & Zimbabwe voting in UK GEs complicit in a crime against democracy or not?
Just walked in to lounge where wife had C4 news on - looked like a 'vox pop' and lady said she felt Corbyn won the debate, bloke next to her said the polls don't agree and her response was something like...
'well the polling companies are owned by the same people as the media who are all getting rich off Tory policies so given that'....
walked back out
I am sure the end of that sentence probably finished that it had something or other to do with the Jews.....
The thing the Tories should be pushing hard is Labour's obscene policy of rigging the electorate in its favour by granting every resident the vote. It's one line in the manifesto but the jump in Labour's electability it produces makes it more dangerous than any other single policy.
Well the Americans decided that they wanted rid of the brits because there was taxation without representation. If you take their taxes why shouldn’t they have a vote?
Because they are not citizens and for the most part there is no reciprocal right. For the avoidance of doubt I’d remove the Irish and Commonwealth rights too.
This is frankly an outrageous gerrymander. Don’t like the electorate so we’ll change it.
No it is not if you take tax revenue of an individual you should give the a say in how it is spent, citizenship is a stupid archaic, nationalistic view of life.
If you change the voting qualification from citizenship to tax paying, you open up a whole can of worms.
Should a millionaire paying 100k in tax a year have ten times the votes of someone paying 10k in tax? What about someone who pays no tax at all, because they are on benefits?
Citizenship = equality.
Not at all who is suggesting an income based vote? It’s just that no taxation without representation did modify history a tad!
If you want to hear an interesting take on the Boston Tea Party then this is really interesting
Well, I'm well behind the curve this time, Labour manifesto Part 1
First impressions Largest so far at 107pages. Title and slogan are not bad, but ‘it’s time for a real change: for the many not the few’ seems like they couldn’t decide on a slogan so did both.
Only 6 main sections, which is easier to digest, but weirdly the version I downloaded has pdf bookmarking for the first section but no others, so the Greens still win this round. Either it was the wrong version, or someone didn’t finish the job before they were told to get it online.
Foreword is even more transformational in tone than the Green one. What is a ‘climate job’ and why do we need a million of them? But there’s major goodies in the foreword, so easy to remember.
Layout is not great – not enough bullet points or summaries.
A Green Industrial Revolution Saying Green Industrial revolution will rebuild towns – no coincidence towns is were they have struggled. Sustainable investment board – again, always with the new bodies and departments, these manifestoes. See also a foundation industries sector council
Hundreds of billions mentioned front up, no edging into it.
Local transformation fund to be decided at local level – but what if locals disagree with the national priorities? Regional offices of government – really don’t think this achieves anything.
Very clear on numbers of wind turbines and solar panels (9000 and 22000 football pitches worth) – not sure how many is the right amount, but clearest so far on numbers at least.
Water nationalisation would be popular.
Why is thriving steel industry vital to the green industrial revolution?
Ooh, investing in 3 new gigafactories. Something about electrical steel.
1 million well paid, unionized jobs in green industry – still no detail on why this number, I suspect its because a million sounds good. Climate apprenticeships are the ‘STEM’ of the future. Need to define acronyms manifesto, I know what that means, but I’ve never heard a person in real life say it.
Like the other two bus services are focused on, but more specific about 3000 routes to be reinstated.
HS2 to Scotland
Mentions a Tory pledge directly, oddly – ending new sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2040, and ‘aim’ to do for 2030.
Not ruling out airport expansion like LDs and Greens, waffling on it instead
Remove need for food banks in three years.
Very short section on animal welfare in the main manifesto. Could have included some more.
Labour manifesto part 2 Rebuild our public services Careful to say corporation tax will be lower than in 2010 – not suggesting they are radical there, while emphasizing radicalness elsewhere.
‘We’ll ask those who earn more than 80k a year to pay a little more income tax’ is a very passive way of putting it.
End presumption of outsourcing public services. I didn’t know there was one, and I work in the public sector.
5% increase immediately to public sector pay, very nice. Affordable?
NHS privatization reversed within 5 years. Ending mixed sex wards. An NHS forest of 1 million trees (again, why 1 million?)
New duty for NHS agencies to collaborate with directors of public health – I’m astonished this is not already a duty
Only reviewing evidence on minimum alcohol pricing – not going as far as LDs or Greens
Abolishing prescription charges
Clinically appropriate prescription of cannabis
Not much detail on how much to be invested in social care, just that there will be
National education service – free education for everyone throughout their lives. That seems like it is promising more than I suspect it is.
How will we hire 150000 additional early years staff, and 1 million climate jobs, and all the rest, even with transformation, when unemployment is so low?
Ofsted to be replaced – does no one want to keep it? I’m unclear how creating a new body to do its job will lead to improvement
What does asking the social justice commission to ‘advise on integrating private schools’ mean?
What is the ‘casualisation of staff’ at HE institutions?
More waffly on stop and search than the others
Avoid needless military interventions – well that’s a meaningless sentence
Not as clear on legal aid cash. Probation services mentioned
Yay, public inquiries into historical injustices
Introduce a public accountability bill – to do what? It doesn’t say
Like others bigging up local councils, but I don’t buy it – Westminster and whitehall don’t trust local councils ‘decades or privatization and outsourcing’ – so it was not just the tories who did it then?
Rural councils to be recognized in funding, but not much on local councils really
Just walked in to lounge where wife had C4 news on - looked like a 'vox pop' and lady said she felt Corbyn won the debate, bloke next to her said the polls don't agree and her response was something like...
'well the polling companies are owned by the same people as the media who are all getting rich off Tory policies so given that'....
walked back out
I am sure the end of that sentence probably finished that it had something or other to do with the Jews.....
Are you really that uniformed about the historical importance of citizenship going all the way back to classical Athens and even earlier? The citizen is the building-block of the city- or nation-state, because that status invests a person with the full rights and responsibilities that membership of that political entity entails. It has almost never been given away willy-nilly, and doing so dilutes the voting power of the existig citizens, which is as close to a crime against democracy as you can get.
Just checking, are 'qualifying' Commonwealth citizens from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada,Cyprus1 Dominica, Fiji Islands, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadies, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, The Gambia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia & Zimbabwe voting in UK GEs complicit in a crime against democracy or not?
It's a unique after-effect of Britain's history of being an empire, although it is a little out of place now that we have reverted to being just a nation-state. Didn't know you were such a fan of the Imperial legacy.
Tackle poverty and inequality Eradicate in work poverty in their first term – that’s a big big promise.
Ministry of employment rights – for gods sake, political parties, not everything is made better by creating a new cabinet level post. I’m also talking to you DEXEU
Paternity leave offer is lower than the LDs, byt more details on maternity pay. Less detail on flexible working, just that it should be a right. Still got four new bank holidays
What’s an ‘unnecessary restriction’ on industrial action? What’s a necessary one?
32 hour working week. It just seems low to me.
Labour not using the full LGBTIQA+ acronym like Greens.
First mention I noticed of the LDs, in relation to the Immigration Act 2014.
‘While Labour wants a society in which people care for one another, the Tories are trying to pitch us against each other’. Good thing Labour don’t do that, eh?
If you replace the DWP with a Department of Social Security on day one, surely it’s the same people doing all of it? How is it different to Gove renaming the DfE?
Immediately stopping UC, when it is so complex apparently, sounds disastrous. Government bureaucracy cannot handle that.
Hitting Tories hard on disabled rights, strong stuff
Contradiction – earlier it said flatlining life expectancy, now it says it is declining.
Triple lock bribe is safe.
They also have the nonsense about the WASPi women. It wasn’t a betrayal for christ’s sake, this is just pandering to the grey vote again.
1bn fire safety fund. Worthy cause, but 1bn presumably again because it sounds good
‘Only labout has a plan to fix the housing crisis’. Pretty sure they all do, Ithink you mean only yours will work It’s true that affordable homes are not always affordable.
Repeal the vagrancy act
8000 homes available for those with a history of rough sleeping
Waffly on House of Lords – ‘work to’ abolish it in favour of senate of nations and regions
Constitutional Convention was an Ed M idea, still good
What does ‘free the voices of civil society by repealing the lobbying act’ mean?
The Final Say on Brexit Legally binding referendum
Bringing up the LDs again about austerity (why in the Brexit section?)
Haha – other parties have exacerbated polarization, but not Labour
A new Internationalism I’m confused why an audit into our colonial legacy is needed, since I’m always being told how much imperialism and colonialism has caused damage and continues to do so – have people been preeumpting an actual study into effects?
Keeping in the review of the Amritsar massacre from the last manifesto
Boris Johnson has overseen a 60% cut in our network of climate experts – he must work fast
I’m confused about how inaction and apathy from the government is bad, when involvement in others’ affairs is bad
Channel 4 News is calling on Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage to take part in a debate on climate change ahead of the election.
On its Twitter feed, the programme said it would devote a one-hour special programme to host "the UK’s first ever leaders’ debate on the issue".
However, while the leaders of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Green Party and the SNP have all agreed to take part, they are still waiting for responses from the leaders of both the Tory and Brexit Party.
In a series of tweets, the programme said: "We urge the prime minister and Nigel Farage to show their commitment to this major issue and take part.
"We do not intend to accept anyone other than party leaders to debate and examine the climate crisis and the related issues of the environment and biodiversity."
And something for everyone to get pissed off over.
If the public take the cynical view that a lot of that wouldn’t get implemented but the bits they like might then it might be a winner , if not then not sure this is going to help Labour .
BTW is the Labour manifesto meant to be a programme of government for five years, or a programme for twenty?
Till the money runs out....
Money will start running out of the country at 10pm on 12/12 if the exit poll says Labour win.
How many trillion can leave before McMao unplugs the banks?
Labour will lose and lose badly, as they deserve, you can vote freely without fear for whom you want. You don’t have to vote for the serial philanderer, liar and someone who is only interested in himself or the idiot with the red tie and insane policies, there are alternatives which are risk free because corbyn is toast
Channel 4 News is calling on Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage to take part in a debate on climate change ahead of the election.
On its Twitter feed, the programme said it would devote a one-hour special programme to host "the UK’s first ever leaders’ debate on the issue".
However, while the leaders of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Green Party and the SNP have all agreed to take part, they are still waiting for responses from the leaders of both the Tory and Brexit Party.
In a series of tweets, the programme said: "We urge the prime minister and Nigel Farage to show their commitment to this major issue and take part.
"We do not intend to accept anyone other than party leaders to debate and examine the climate crisis and the related issues of the environment and biodiversity."
Re the right to vote, wouldn't it be better if it was something that had to be earned. People could accumulate citizenship points, and when they reached a high enough level, they would gain certain privileges:
100 pts - right to vote in local elections 150 pts - right to vote in national elections 200 pts - right to use the fast lane on the motorway 250 pts - right to stand in national elections
Points could be earned for serving in the forces, paying your taxes on time, keeping the streets around your house clean, your children having good school attendance records etc.
And they could be lost by committing a crime, or other antisocial behaviour
Channel 4 News is calling on Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage to take part in a debate on climate change ahead of the election.
On its Twitter feed, the programme said it would devote a one-hour special programme to host "the UK’s first ever leaders’ debate on the issue".
However, while the leaders of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Green Party and the SNP have all agreed to take part, they are still waiting for responses from the leaders of both the Tory and Brexit Party.
In a series of tweets, the programme said: "We urge the prime minister and Nigel Farage to show their commitment to this major issue and take part.
"We do not intend to accept anyone other than party leaders to debate and examine the climate crisis and the related issues of the environment and biodiversity."
Quite right to
I will be surprised if Boris agrees to it. Let Labour, Lib Dems and Green battle it out for the same audience. Not like he isn't doing over debates, so has cover to say thanks but no thanks.
BTW is the Labour manifesto meant to be a programme of government for five years, or a programme for twenty?
Till the money runs out....
Money will start running out of the country at 10pm on 12/12 if the exit poll says Labour win.
How many trillion can leave before McMao unplugs the banks?
Labour will lose and lose badly, as they deserve, you can vote freely without fear for whom you want. You don’t have to vote for the serial philanderer, liar and someone who is only interested in himself or the idiot with the red tie and insane policies, there are alternatives which are risk free because corbyn is toast
Corbyn will only be toast if Labour goes down to a historic defeat. A hung Parliament means another election soon, which means yet another chance for the not-so-crypto-Marxist to seize power.
Its not as if the Prime Minister might be a little bit busy with other committments now is it?
Busy pulling out of them, I am sure you meant to say.
He gets more and more like Mrs M
Actually, attending the first one and only then pulling out of others was a genius move - it was such an appalling debate that no one is clamouring for more of them!
BTW is the Labour manifesto meant to be a programme of government for five years, or a programme for twenty?
Till the money runs out....
Money will start running out of the country at 10pm on 12/12 if the exit poll says Labour win.
How many trillion can leave before McMao unplugs the banks?
Labour will lose and lose badly, as they deserve, you can vote freely without fear for whom you want. You don’t have to vote for the serial philanderer, liar and someone who is only interested in himself or the idiot with the red tie and insane policies, there are alternatives which are risk free because corbyn is toast
Corbyn will only be toast if Labour goes down to a historic defeat. A hung Parliament means another election soon, which means yet another chance for the not-so-crypto-Marxist to seize power.
Marxist my arse.
There’s a lot for leftist entryism to dislike about this Labour Manifesto. Renew Trident. Spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. No Nationalisation of the banks or investment houses. No class war (how can you have a fair society with a class system?) Restrictions of free movement if there’s Brexit. What is there for Marxists to actually like? Its just traditional timid Labour bottling it. If you are a lefty you cannot trust politicians who have been in Labour family all their life to deliver a lefty manifesto.
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
Seriously? You'd done so well to maintain your impartiality until now.
Did I ever claim to be impartial?
Not that I recall, but you presented Labour talking points in a measured way, which is fair enough - no one is impartial, and you're clearly not rabidly partisan.
BTW is the Labour manifesto meant to be a programme of government for five years, or a programme for twenty?
Till the money runs out....
Money will start running out of the country at 10pm on 12/12 if the exit poll says Labour win.
How many trillion can leave before McMao unplugs the banks?
Labour will lose and lose badly, as they deserve, you can vote freely without fear for whom you want. You don’t have to vote for the serial philanderer, liar and someone who is only interested in himself or the idiot with the red tie and insane policies, there are alternatives which are risk free because corbyn is toast
Corbyn will only be toast if Labour goes down to a historic defeat. A hung Parliament means another election soon, which means yet another chance for the not-so-crypto-Marxist to seize power.
Marxist my arse.
There’s a lot for leftist entryism to dislike about this Labour Manifesto. Renew Trident. Spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. No Nationalisation of the banks or investment houses. No class war (how can you have a fair society with a class system?) Restrictions of free movement if there’s Brexit. What is there for Marxists to actually like? Its just traditional timid Labour bottling it. If you are a lefty you cannot trust politicians who have been in Labour family all their life to deliver a lefty manifesto.
I beg to differ on the lack of class war! Huge tax hikes on personal income, businesses, capital gains, inheritance, private education aren't un oeuf for you?
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
You hid your labour leanings so well ......
My gut feeling is if it moves the dial it will not be in the direction you want.
Still, at least you given up on the "closing the gap" message that you were peddling
I've enjoyed CorrectHorseBattery's perspective. Partisan yes but not a shill.
I'm actually surprised by how badly Labour's promises seem to be going down. I'd have assumed "free stuff" would be a vote winner, at least with the pooerst in society and a few of the squeezed middle. But no Labour bounce so far.
It's often said that 2017 was fought on many issues with Brexit being one of many, however it does seem as if 2019 is the "get Brexit done" election we were promised. Labour can't compete.
I can't help but wonder if Labour have shot themselves in the foot by promising far too many things. If they'd concentrated on, say, three key policies they could have at least built a coalition around them.
For example - 1. End student debt. Everyone under 40 votes for them. 2. Build 1m new council houses. Tells the working class they are on their side. 3. Legalise tax and regulate all drugs. Promise fall in crime, increased tax revenues directly increases NHS funding.
At the moment Labour's messaging isn't clear and that allows the Tories room to repeat their much simpler, more memorable message. More labour = More tax.
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
Seriously? You'd done so well to maintain your impartiality until now.
Did I ever claim to be impartial?
Not that I recall, but you presented Labour talking points in a measured way, which is fair enough.
Thanks for recognising it.
I do want Labour to win - but I also do think that Labour will close the gap.
I was one of the few to call the last election right and I know a lot of people say "it's not 2017 anymore", there are signs that it is - and I just have a gut feeling like I did last time.
I simply do not think the Tories will win a majority.
They have broken from all-out NHS worship and proposed a )presumably partial) tax break system to get the wealthy (ie top 10%) to go opt out of the state system and go private.
It will be interesting indeed to see how this goes down on the doorsteps of working class England and Wales.
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
You hid your labour leanings so well ......
My gut feeling is if it moves the dial it will not be in the direction you want.
Still, at least you given up on the "closing the gap" message that you were peddling
I've enjoyed CorrectHorseBattery's perspective. Partisan yes but not a shill.
I'm actually surprised by how badly Labour's promises seem to be going down. I'd have assumed "free stuff" would be a vote winner, at least with the pooerst in society and a few of the squeezed middle. But no Labour bounce so far.
It's often said that 2017 was fought on many issues with Brexit being one of many, however it does seem as if 2019 is the "get Brexit done" election we were promised. Labour can't compete.
I can't help but wonder if Labour have shot themselves in the foot by promising far too many things. If they'd concentrated on, say, three key policies they could have at least built a coalition around them.
For example - 1. End student debt. Everyone under 40 votes for them. 2. Build 1m new council houses. Tells the working class they are on their side. 3. Legalise tax and regulate all drugs. Promise fall in crime, increased tax revenues directly increases NHS funding.
At the moment Labour's messaging isn't clear and that allows the Tories room to repeat their much simpler, more memorable message. More labour = More tax.
Thanks for your feedback.
Regarding this being the Brexit election, there are signs it isn't, e.g. the NHS leading the IPSOS poll. That should be Labour's ground - but we will see.
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
You hid your labour leanings so well ......
My gut feeling is if it moves the dial it will not be in the direction you want.
Still, at least you given up on the "closing the gap" message that you were peddling
I've enjoyed CorrectHorseBattery's perspective. Partisan yes but not a shill.
I'm actually surprised by how badly Labour's promises seem to be going down. I'd have assumed "free stuff" would be a vote winner, at least with the pooerst in society and a few of the squeezed middle. But no Labour bounce so far.
It's often said that 2017 was fought on many issues with Brexit being one of many, however it does seem as if 2019 is the "get Brexit done" election we were promised. Labour can't compete.
I can't help but wonder if Labour have shot themselves in the foot by promising far too many things. If they'd concentrated on, say, three key policies they could have at least built a coalition around them.
For example - 1. End student debt. Everyone under 40 votes for them. 2. Build 1m new council houses. Tells the working class they are on their side. 3. Legalise tax and regulate all drugs. Promise fall in crime, increased tax revenues directly increases NHS funding.
At the moment Labour's messaging isn't clear and that allows the Tories room to repeat their much simpler, more memorable message. More labour = More tax.
You think the working class all live in council houses ?
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
You hid your labour leanings so well ......
My gut feeling is if it moves the dial it will not be in the direction you want.
Still, at least you given up on the "closing the gap" message that you were peddling
I've enjoyed CorrectHorseBattery's perspective. Partisan yes but not a shill.
I'm actually surprised by how badly Labour's promises seem to be going down. I'd have assumed "free stuff" would be a vote winner, at least with the pooerst in society and a few of the squeezed middle. But no Labour bounce so far.
It's often said that 2017 was fought on many issues with Brexit being one of many, however it does seem as if 2019 is the "get Brexit done" election we were promised. Labour can't compete.
I can't help but wonder if Labour have shot themselves in the foot by promising far too many things. If they'd concentrated on, say, three key policies they could have at least built a coalition around them.
For example - 1. End student debt. Everyone under 40 votes for them. 2. Build 1m new council houses. Tells the working class they are on their side. 3. Legalise tax and regulate all drugs. Promise fall in crime, increased tax revenues directly increases NHS funding.
At the moment Labour's messaging isn't clear and that allows the Tories room to repeat their much simpler, more memorable message. More labour = More tax.
Thanks for your feedback.
Regarding this being the Brexit election, there are signs it isn't, e.g. the NHS leading the IPSOS poll. That should be Labour's ground - but we will see.
Hope you stick around, I enjoy reading you.
I wonder if it's "the Brexit election" in places like Grimsby as discussed in the previous thread. I can't see any other explanation for polling like that. Even if concerns like the NHS are more important elsewhere.
It's make or break for Labour really. If the manifesto doesn't move the dial, well nothing is going to - and frankly I'll be very sad about that.
You hid your labour leanings so well ......
My gut feeling is if it moves the dial it will not be in the direction you want.
Still, at least you given up on the "closing the gap" message that you were peddling
I've enjoyed CorrectHorseBattery's perspective. Partisan yes but not a shill.
I'm actually surprised by how badly Labour's promises seem to be going down. I'd have assumed "free stuff" would be a vote winner, at least with the pooerst in society and a few of the squeezed middle. But no Labour bounce so far.
It's often said that 2017 was fought on many issues with Brexit being one of many, however it does seem as if 2019 is the "get Brexit done" election we were promised. Labour can't compete.
I can't help but wonder if Labour have shot themselves in the foot by promising far too many things. If they'd concentrated on, say, three key policies they could have at least built a coalition around them.
For example - 1. End student debt. Everyone under 40 votes for them. 2. Build 1m new council houses. Tells the working class they are on their side. 3. Legalise tax and regulate all drugs. Promise fall in crime, increased tax revenues directly increases NHS funding.
At the moment Labour's messaging isn't clear and that allows the Tories room to repeat their much simpler, more memorable message. More labour = More tax.
If labour had not included ludicrous nationalization and 70’s style union empowerment proposals they would have a valid offering. Nobody that remembers the disaster of nationalized industry and union power could vote for it. For god sake national collective bargaining. The tories are evil twats but labour are just stupid they are failing the people who need them with this ludicrous policy of state control and union rights
Re the right to vote, wouldn't it be better if it was something that had to be earned. People could accumulate citizenship points, and when they reached a high enough level, they would gain certain privileges:
100 pts - right to vote in local elections 150 pts - right to vote in national elections 200 pts - right to use the fast lane on the motorway 250 pts - right to stand in national elections
Points could be earned for serving in the forces, paying your taxes on time, keeping the streets around your house clean, your children having good school attendance records etc.
And they could be lost by committing a crime, or other antisocial behaviour
I'm sure the Chinese could advise on such a system.
The Factcheck literally said CCHQ and labourmanifesto.co.uk literally says on its second line in big text "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"
No, it said FactCheck UK. Their display name did not mention the Conservative party in any way. That is why twitter told them not to do it again under threat of suspension.
Not the name but it said CCHQ in the graphics, in the description and on the handle.
The avatar did not, nor did the display name.. The two main thing that would be seen on a like or retweet.
If the display name is long enough you don't even see the twitter handle on a retweet.
It was incredibly cynically done. You don't see the account header unless you click through to the profile page itself, not an individual tweet.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ARMilani_/status/1197572493072064512?s=19
Why not put a turnstile in the voting booths and charge a fiver a go?
This is going to get crucified the more folk hear about it.
Not at all who is suggesting an income based vote? It’s just that no taxation without representation did modify history a tad!
Johnson has the advantage of historically low interest rates but the fact remains the deficit will accumulate the debt, the interest on which has to be serviced both now and by future generations.
It's disappointing to see all parties (and I include the LDs) abandoning the notions of sound finance in favour of reckless populist spending commitments.
The problem with this election (and it is unique in this regard) is that it's about Brexit and Corbyn - next time round, both will be in the past and we can have a proper debate about the future of the country.
'well the polling companies are owned by the same people as the media who are all getting rich off Tory policies so given that'....
walked back out
Waiting to see if any from candidates from the neighbouring constituency (boundary is about 50 yards away). It happened in 2017.
Voting should be restricted to any male head of a household with a hearth big enough to boil a wallop.
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/33-tempest-in-a-teacup
And shows the episode in a rather different light. History is indeed written by the victors.
First impressions
Largest so far at 107pages. Title and slogan are not bad, but ‘it’s time for a real change: for the many not the few’ seems like they couldn’t decide on a slogan so did both.
Only 6 main sections, which is easier to digest, but weirdly the version I downloaded has pdf bookmarking for the first section but no others, so the Greens still win this round. Either it was the wrong version, or someone didn’t finish the job before they were told to get it online.
Foreword is even more transformational in tone than the Green one. What is a ‘climate job’ and why do we need a million of them? But there’s major goodies in the foreword, so easy to remember.
Layout is not great – not enough bullet points or summaries.
A Green Industrial Revolution
Saying Green Industrial revolution will rebuild towns – no coincidence towns is were they have struggled.
Sustainable investment board – again, always with the new bodies and departments, these manifestoes. See also a foundation industries sector council
Hundreds of billions mentioned front up, no edging into it.
Local transformation fund to be decided at local level – but what if locals disagree with the national priorities?
Regional offices of government – really don’t think this achieves anything.
Very clear on numbers of wind turbines and solar panels (9000 and 22000 football pitches worth) – not sure how many is the right amount, but clearest so far on numbers at least.
Water nationalisation would be popular.
Why is thriving steel industry vital to the green industrial revolution?
Ooh, investing in 3 new gigafactories. Something about electrical steel.
1 million well paid, unionized jobs in green industry – still no detail on why this number, I suspect its because a million sounds good. Climate apprenticeships are the ‘STEM’ of the future. Need to define acronyms manifesto, I know what that means, but I’ve never heard a person in real life say it.
Like the other two bus services are focused on, but more specific about 3000 routes to be reinstated.
HS2 to Scotland
Mentions a Tory pledge directly, oddly – ending new sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2040, and ‘aim’ to do for 2030.
Not ruling out airport expansion like LDs and Greens, waffling on it instead
Remove need for food banks in three years.
Very short section on animal welfare in the main manifesto. Could have included some more.
Rebuild our public services
Careful to say corporation tax will be lower than in 2010 – not suggesting they are radical there, while emphasizing radicalness elsewhere.
‘We’ll ask those who earn more than 80k a year to pay a little more income tax’ is a very passive way of putting it.
End presumption of outsourcing public services. I didn’t know there was one, and I work in the public sector.
5% increase immediately to public sector pay, very nice. Affordable?
NHS privatization reversed within 5 years. Ending mixed sex wards. An NHS forest of 1 million trees (again, why 1 million?)
New duty for NHS agencies to collaborate with directors of public health – I’m astonished this is not already a duty
Only reviewing evidence on minimum alcohol pricing – not going as far as LDs or Greens
Abolishing prescription charges
Clinically appropriate prescription of cannabis
Not much detail on how much to be invested in social care, just that there will be
National education service – free education for everyone throughout their lives. That seems like it is promising more than I suspect it is.
How will we hire 150000 additional early years staff, and 1 million climate jobs, and all the rest, even with transformation, when unemployment is so low?
Ofsted to be replaced – does no one want to keep it? I’m unclear how creating a new body to do its job will lead to improvement
What does asking the social justice commission to ‘advise on integrating private schools’ mean?
What is the ‘casualisation of staff’ at HE institutions?
More waffly on stop and search than the others
Avoid needless military interventions – well that’s a meaningless sentence
Not as clear on legal aid cash. Probation services mentioned
Yay, public inquiries into historical injustices
Introduce a public accountability bill – to do what? It doesn’t say
Like others bigging up local councils, but I don’t buy it – Westminster and whitehall don’t trust local councils
‘decades or privatization and outsourcing’ – so it was not just the tories who did it then?
Rural councils to be recognized in funding, but not much on local councils really
My gut feeling is if it moves the dial it will not be in the direction you want.
Still, at least you given up on the "closing the gap" message that you were peddling
Tackle poverty and inequality
Eradicate in work poverty in their first term – that’s a big big promise.
Ministry of employment rights – for gods sake, political parties, not everything is made better by creating a new cabinet level post. I’m also talking to you DEXEU
Paternity leave offer is lower than the LDs, byt more details on maternity pay. Less detail on flexible working, just that it should be a right. Still got four new bank holidays
What’s an ‘unnecessary restriction’ on industrial action? What’s a necessary one?
32 hour working week. It just seems low to me.
Labour not using the full LGBTIQA+ acronym like Greens.
First mention I noticed of the LDs, in relation to the Immigration Act 2014.
‘While Labour wants a society in which people care for one another, the Tories are trying to pitch us against each other’. Good thing Labour don’t do that, eh?
If you replace the DWP with a Department of Social Security on day one, surely it’s the same people doing all of it? How is it different to Gove renaming the DfE?
Immediately stopping UC, when it is so complex apparently, sounds disastrous. Government bureaucracy cannot handle that.
Hitting Tories hard on disabled rights, strong stuff
Contradiction – earlier it said flatlining life expectancy, now it says it is declining.
Triple lock bribe is safe.
They also have the nonsense about the WASPi women. It wasn’t a betrayal for christ’s sake, this is just pandering to the grey vote again.
1bn fire safety fund. Worthy cause, but 1bn presumably again because it sounds good
‘Only labout has a plan to fix the housing crisis’. Pretty sure they all do, Ithink you mean only yours will work
It’s true that affordable homes are not always affordable.
Repeal the vagrancy act
8000 homes available for those with a history of rough sleeping
Waffly on House of Lords – ‘work to’ abolish it in favour of senate of nations and regions
Constitutional Convention was an Ed M idea, still good
What does ‘free the voices of civil society by repealing the lobbying act’ mean?
The Final Say on Brexit
Legally binding referendum
Bringing up the LDs again about austerity (why in the Brexit section?)
Haha – other parties have exacerbated polarization, but not Labour
A new Internationalism
I’m confused why an audit into our colonial legacy is needed, since I’m always being told how much imperialism and colonialism has caused damage and continues to do so – have people been preeumpting an actual study into effects?
Keeping in the review of the Amritsar massacre from the last manifesto
Boris Johnson has overseen a 60% cut in our network of climate experts – he must work fast
I’m confused about how inaction and apathy from the government is bad, when involvement in others’ affairs is bad
I’ve never heard of the Global South before.
On its Twitter feed, the programme said it would devote a one-hour special programme to host "the UK’s first ever leaders’ debate on the issue".
However, while the leaders of Labour, the Lib Dems, the Green Party and the SNP have all agreed to take part, they are still waiting for responses from the leaders of both the Tory and Brexit Party.
In a series of tweets, the programme said: "We urge the prime minister and Nigel Farage to show their commitment to this major issue and take part.
"We do not intend to accept anyone other than party leaders to debate and examine the climate crisis and the related issues of the environment and biodiversity."
Something good for everyone .
And something for everyone to get pissed off over.
If the public take the cynical view that a lot of that wouldn’t get implemented but the bits they like might then it might be a winner , if not then not sure this is going to help Labour .
100 pts - right to vote in local elections
150 pts - right to vote in national elections
200 pts - right to use the fast lane on the motorway
250 pts - right to stand in national elections
Points could be earned for serving in the forces, paying your taxes on time, keeping the streets around your house clean, your children having good school attendance records etc.
And they could be lost by committing a crime, or other antisocial behaviour
He gets more and more like Mrs M
Did you miss me?
There’s a lot for leftist entryism to dislike about this Labour Manifesto. Renew Trident. Spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. No Nationalisation of the banks or investment houses. No class war (how can you have a fair society with a class system?) Restrictions of free movement if there’s Brexit. What is there for Marxists to actually like? Its just traditional timid Labour bottling it. If you are a lefty you cannot trust politicians who have been in Labour family all their life to deliver a lefty manifesto.
p.s. Yes, I will keep using that pun.
I'm actually surprised by how badly Labour's promises seem to be going down. I'd have assumed "free stuff" would be a vote winner, at least with the pooerst in society and a few of the squeezed middle. But no Labour bounce so far.
It's often said that 2017 was fought on many issues with Brexit being one of many, however it does seem as if 2019 is the "get Brexit done" election we were promised. Labour can't compete.
I can't help but wonder if Labour have shot themselves in the foot by promising far too many things. If they'd concentrated on, say, three key policies they could have at least built a coalition around them.
For example - 1. End student debt. Everyone under 40 votes for them. 2. Build 1m new council houses. Tells the working class they are on their side. 3. Legalise tax and regulate all drugs. Promise fall in crime, increased tax revenues directly increases NHS funding.
At the moment Labour's messaging isn't clear and that allows the Tories room to repeat their much simpler, more memorable message. More labour = More tax.
I do want Labour to win - but I also do think that Labour will close the gap.
I was one of the few to call the last election right and I know a lot of people say "it's not 2017 anymore", there are signs that it is - and I just have a gut feeling like I did last time.
I simply do not think the Tories will win a majority.
They have broken from all-out NHS worship and proposed a )presumably partial) tax break system to get the wealthy (ie top 10%) to go opt out of the state system and go private.
It will be interesting indeed to see how this goes down on the doorsteps of working class England and Wales.
The Evening Standard have effectively been found out to have made up a quote from Corbyn and have now been forced to amend that in their article .
Regarding this being the Brexit election, there are signs it isn't, e.g. the NHS leading the IPSOS poll. That should be Labour's ground - but we will see.
I wonder if it's "the Brexit election" in places like Grimsby as discussed in the previous thread. I can't see any other explanation for polling like that. Even if concerns like the NHS are more important elsewhere.
I've read the IFS report, it's not nearly as scathing as people are making out.
If the display name is long enough you don't even see the twitter handle on a retweet.
It was incredibly cynically done. You don't see the account header unless you click through to the profile page itself, not an individual tweet.