No. Nothing in Islam requires the burka so how can it be? Only racists and extremists like @noo believe that Islam = Burka there's over a billion Muslims across the globe who don't wear the burka.
It is entirely reasonable for 4 year olds to see the face of the people looking after them. It's natural. Facial cues are important for children.
I agree with you. But do you think @Noo dle-brains will call out Thornberry the way he has Johnson?
Is Johnson a four-year-old?
Don't you think he'd know the words to the wheels on the bus if he were?
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Who is this "we"? I suspect most posters welcome NP's comments which are always polite and often insightful. Sure he tries to put the best spin he can on Labour's polices but he does ramp mindlessly like a couple of the Tory posters I could name.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
The Leftie ideological fan club are crawling out of the woodwork this morning to defend their beloved.
You are the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are filled with bile on almost a daily basis.
Can those Conservatives who are quoting the IFS as gospel about Labour's spending plans confirm in advance that they will be quoting them just as assiduously when they comment on the viability of the Conservatives' spending plans? They didn't seem so keen on them last month when they were opining on Brexit.
.
.
.
The country being shoehorned into the equivalent of a severe recession lasting many years might very well be worse than a one term Corbyn government. [snip]
Might be. It is very difficult to know how either event would pan out. Neither would be ideal, certainly.
Where we might delve a little deeper is the 'one term' bit. Imagine for the sake of argument a Corbyn government which lasted to December 2024, by which time the countrt has suffered a fate not unlike that of Greece. We wouldn't be able to just turn the clock back to 2019, or 2016, or whatever date you want to go back to. Or ur ability to create wealth would for a variety of reasons have been severely diminished. Meanwhile, the overton window would have shiftef significantly - state funding of everything and interference in everything would be the norm. I It's almost impossible in a democracy to just turn the taps off overnight - look how long it took even the fairly determined George Osborne to make any inroads into the defecit that Gordon Brown had built up. The economic impact of one term of Corbyn government would last well over a decade.
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
I suspect that's Catholic Herald spin - I would be astonished if any mainstream UK party (including the current Labour one) proposed such a thing - if anything with advances in medicine improving the survivability of premature babies the trend is to lower the limit from the current 24 weeks.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
To be fair Balotelli earned that a week and he could not even put his training bib on without help!
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
You sure he wasn't describing himself?
a[n] innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year
Casino Rachman is employing the pluralis majestatis.
With your routine linguistic gymnastics you come across as someone who's desperately trying to convince yourself (and others) that you're cleverer than you actually are, but you're subconsciously rather insecure about it.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
I suspect that's Catholic Herald spin - I would be astonished if any mainstream UK party (including the current Labour one) proposed such a thing - if anything with advances in medicine improving the survivability of premature babies the trend is to lower the limit from the current 24 weeks.
I hope you are right - there is more than enough to criticise Labour over and really hope this is not true.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Who is this "we"? I suspect most posters welcome NP's comments which are always polite and often insightful. Sure he tries to put the best spin he can on Labour's polices but he does ramp mindlessly like a couple of the Tory posters I could name.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
The Leftie ideological fan club are crawling out of the woodwork this morning to defend their beloved.
You are the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are filled with bile on almost a daily basis.
If you say so but I try not look at politics solely through the prism of what's best for me. You might want to try it sometime
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
But its not true. Look across the world at repeated failed Marxist experiments and you will see plenty of infrastructure that was built and never put to good use because there's no point investing in infrastructure if you haven't got a use for it at the end!
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
Words have meaning. I am responsible for my words not Labours plan. I am not supporting Labours overall economic plan. My post said Labours plan was likely to be bad. It said infrastructure investment leads to productivity which it does. It even caveated (for the sake of pedants) that not all infrastructure investment is good for productivity, it can be ineffective.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment can lead to productivity improvements" then that I would 100% agree with.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment increases productivity" I would have had my doubts but not replied. Investment can increase productivity but it can also decrease it if it is the wrong investment. See as an example the investment in Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) : https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181030-what-happened-to-berlins-ghost-airport
However you said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity" - that has no evidence behind it and by specifically taxing Research and Development and by specifically taxing Investment it seems quite improbable.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Oh, there’s nothing persuasive about it.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
What's wrong with saying you don't mind high taxes and think other people shouldn't mind it too? I also don't mind high taxes and I think other people shouldn't mind so much either. Why is that such an awful thing to say? You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but you seem unable to bear anyone saying anything you disagree with, which seems odd.
Casino Rachman is employing the pluralis majestatis.
With your routine linguistic gymnastics you come across as someone who's desperately trying to convince yourself (and others) that you're cleverer than you actually are, but you're subconsciously rather insecure about it.
A Leeds United fan, thinking that they are good enough for the Premiership..... when their play suggests otherwise.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
The guy was either a liar or an idiot.
Once you start from that base there isn't much good you can say.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
This surely can't be true? I'm pro-choice also but this is as good as murder. For those of you with children imagine the situation the day before they were born they could have been aborted. Surely this would be legalised murder?
At this point in a baby's development they are a fully living being and there can be no medical benefits to the mother of an abortion. This is a bonkers policy. It makes me feel sick.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
I suspect that's Catholic Herald spin - I would be astonished if any mainstream UK party (including the current Labour one) proposed such a thing - if anything with advances in medicine improving the survivability of premature babies the trend is to lower the limit from the current 24 weeks.
I hope you are right - there is more than enough to criticise Labour over and really hope this is not true.
I suspect some absolutist ideologue answered the initial query and a "clarification" will be with us shortly...
I find this hatred of the 4 day week mind boggling. Sure, people may be concerned with loss of earnings, but alongside other Labour policies (as all of these policies should), it is obvious that they plan a pretty radical reshaping of work and the economy anyway, and this is part of that.
I also assume it isn't a mandatory item, as much as a weekend rate for the 5th day, and possibly Sunday rates for Sat and Sunday?
But also from an ideological perspective, it just makes sense. The more automation there is, the less work there is that needs people, the more people should be able to benefit from that automation. The main issue at the moment seems to be only the super rich are benefiting from this automation (through profit), whereas we could all be benefiting from it much more equally. Imagine if half of labour could be automated. The capitalist mindset is that this would be great for the owners and terrible for the workers; owners make profit selling cheap goods, but workers lose their jobs (whilst also unable to buy goods, making wealth inequality massive, and as Marxists would say, revolution inevitable). If we can half the working week, and the same amount of work is done, why shouldn't we?
The lefty academic in me then turns to Marx, who would argue you could just have the automated work be a public benefit for all, and people work less hours and get more. This is what ownership of means of production means in the modern world; why should some billionaire be able to build a mostly automated factory and have infinite profit off of it when, actually, labourers had to build it, people had to design it, resources had to extracted by miners and whatnot. Even those innovators who design automation don't tend to get the profits from it, because the corporation is allowed to own their ideas.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Who is this "we"? I suspect most posters welcome NP's comments which are always polite and often insightful. Sure he tries to put the best spin he can on Labour's polices but he does ramp mindlessly like a couple of the Tory posters I could name.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
The Leftie ideological fan club are crawling out of the woodwork this morning to defend their beloved.
You are the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are filled with bile on almost a daily basis.
If you say so but I try not look at politics solely through the prism of what's best for me. You might want to try it sometime
The country being shoehorned into the equivalent of a severe recession lasting many years might very well be worse than a one term Corbyn government. [snip]
Might be. It is very difficult to know how either event would pan out. Neither would be ideal, certainly.
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments, but anti Corbynites are in danger of winning the battle and losing the war. If as expected the Tories get a big majority, deliver Brexit then what? The Tory voters have been promised things they will not get.
Many Tory voters are now ex Labour voters, who will they turn to when they feel betrayed? If the Tories repeat another decade of giving all the benefits of economic growth to the asset rich and none to workers then a far left government becomes inevitable in the next 10-15 years. To stop Corbynism, we need to restore a better balance between work and capital, between young and old.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
This surely can't be true? I'm pro-choice also but this is as good as murder. For those of you with children imagine the situation the day before they were born they could have been aborted. Surely this would be legalised murder?
At this point in a baby's development they are a fully living being and there can be no medical benefits to the mother of an abortion. This is a bonkers policy. It makes me feel sick.
I assume it is just a badly worded statement / purposefully viewed in the most unflattering interpretation 🤷♂️
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Oh, there’s nothing persuasive about it.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
What's wrong with saying you don't mind high taxes and think other people shouldn't mind it too? I also don't mind high taxes and I think other people shouldn't mind so much either. Why is that such an awful thing to say? You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but you seem unable to bear anyone saying anything you disagree with, which seems odd.
I’ve laid out my arguments upthread which, oddly, no-one on the Left other than Jonathan seriously engaged with. Instead they preferred to rely on tired old troupes of rich v. poor and trying to leverage emotional blackmail.
If that happens don’t be surprised if some get emotional in response.
Casino Rachman is employing the pluralis majestatis.
With your routine linguistic gymnastics you come across as someone who's desperately trying to convince yourself (and others) that you're cleverer than you actually are, but you're subconsciously rather insecure about it.
What is the matter with you? Did you lose a penny this morning?
@Dura_Ace - I am glad you turned up. I was thinking of paging you when I noticed CR's pomposity gland was inflating.....
Taxes are already high. Jez is making them punitively so.
I disagree. I paid higher tax living in Switzerland, which is scarcely known for its rampant socialism.Tax in Denmark was higher still.
A problem is that we can all point to things we don't want money spent on, so the willingness to contribute to a pool of Government spending is more limited than if we could pick and choose. But consent to jointly paying for whatever we collectively decide through elections are the priorities is part of the basic democratic deal. Sometimes we like the outcome, sometimes not, but the basic system makes sense.
I do quite like the system in some European countries that you can nominate a proportion of your tax to go to specific causes. Obviously the Government can then a bit cynically divert money they would have spent on those to less popular things that they think necessary, but it at least gives a greater sense of buy-in.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Oh, there’s nothing persuasive about it.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
What's wrong with saying you don't mind high taxes and think other people shouldn't mind it too? I also don't mind high taxes and I think other people shouldn't mind so much either. Why is that such an awful thing to say? You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but you seem unable to bear anyone saying anything you disagree with, which seems odd.
It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
But its not true. Look across the world at repeated failed Marxist experiments and you will see plenty of infrastructure that was built and never put to good use because there's no point investing in infrastructure if you haven't got a use for it at the end!
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
Words have meaning. I am responsible for my words not Labours plan. I am not supporting Labours overall economic plan. My post said Labours plan was likely to be bad. It said infrastructure investment leads to productivity which it does. It even caveated (for the sake of pedants) that not all infrastructure investment is good for productivity, it can be ineffective.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment can lead to productivity improvements" then that I would 100% agree with.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment increases productivity" I would have had my doubts but not replied. Investment can increase productivity but it can also decrease it if it is the wrong investment. See as an example the investment in Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) : https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181030-what-happened-to-berlins-ghost-airport
However you said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity" - that has no evidence behind it and by specifically taxing Research and Development and by specifically taxing Investment it seems quite improbable.
I give up. Taxing R&D is not infrastructure investement, it is taxation. When I say Labours infrastructure investment I mean Labours infrastructure investment not Labour economic policies.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
Eighty grand is fucking huge mate.
It is a nice income, but you might be surprised how tax erodes the difference significantly.
A long serving teacher without any special enhancements will be on £40k. Double that to £80k only brings in an extra £24k after tax.
What tends to erode the difference for a significant proportion of households on those budgets is brands. Get a 90% the same car made in the same factory but with a different badge and pay an extra £5-20k. Get an Armani T-shirt instead of a Next T-shirt and pay 200% premium.
Easy to trade up but little benefit gained, and then people find it hard to trade down when finances require it. As we are not taught how to manage our finances, many do not significantly notice the benefit of "just" £24k after tax as it is often frittered away.
That’s an interesting comment. It’s certainly true that people are increasingly wishing to ‘flaunt’ wealth at lower and lower actual wealth, and that the actual wealthy are now turning to values rather than possessions.
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
The current Prime Minister has sought to suspend democracy to impose a long term policy that no one voted for. I have far more concerns about the future of democracy under Boris Johnson than under Jeremy Corbyn. I cannot comprehend why you could conclude differently on the evidence available.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
But its not true. Look across the world at repeated failed Marxist experiments and you will see plenty of infrastructure that was built and never put to good use because there's no point investing in infrastructure if you haven't got a use for it at the end!
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
Words have meaning. I am responsible for my words not Labours plan. I am not supporting Labours overall economic plan. My post said Labours plan was likely to be bad. It said infrastructure investment leads to productivity which it does. It even caveated (for the sake of pedants) that not all infrastructure investment is good for productivity, it can be ineffective.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment can lead to productivity improvements" then that I would 100% agreBerlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER)e with.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment increases productivity" I would have had my doubts but not replied. Investment can increase productivity but it can also decrease it if it is the wrong investment. See as an example the investment in Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) : https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181030-what-happened-to-berlins-ghost-airport
However you said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity" - that has no evidence behind it and by specifically taxing Research and Development and by specifically taxing Investment it seems quite improbable.
I give up. Taxing R&D is not infrastructure investement, it is taxation. When I say Labours infrastructure investment I mean Labours infrastructure investment not Labour economic policies.
You can't have one without the other.
Investing in infrastructure like Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) does the square root of f**k all to boost productivity if at the same time you are punitively taxing R&D and Investment and Corporations etc
Casino Rachman is employing the pluralis majestatis.
With your routine linguistic gymnastics you come across as someone who's desperately trying to convince yourself (and others) that you're cleverer than you actually are, but you're subconsciously rather insecure about it.
What is the matter with you? Did you lose a penny this morning?
@Dura_Ace - I am glad you turned up. I was thinking of paging you when I noticed CR's pomposity gland was inflating.....
You’ve posted like a child on here for years, with your juvenile emojis in every single post and excessive use of exclamation marks.
You were unreadable when you were a BOO’er well to the right of me and you are unreadable now you’re to the left of me too.
Maybe it’s not your fault. You’re just not very bright.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
The guy was either a liar or an idiot.
Or he is someone on 80 grand who doesn't feel "well off" - with a mortgage and other costs.
We have some on here (and not just Tories - I recall a great ululation on the capping of child credits for the "better off")
Polling on support for abortion at eight and a half months would be worth a look.
Otherwise known as murder.
The poster writes itself.
An image of a beautiful baby.
"Emily was born a week premature.
Labour says her mother should be allowed to have killed her."
No poster. Abortion is a conscience not party political issue and that should continue.
I entirely support the mother's right to choose to have an abortion. But within time limits. We can discuss those time limits - whether the current limit is too late in the term. We can discuss abortions beyond that where it is shown the foetus has some massive problem. Or where the mother's life is threatened by carrying to full term.
But who would justify a system where our NHS staff are being asked to abort a healthy near-full term baby that cries until it dies?
Yes, Tories don’t want to get dragged down the rabbit hole of talking about Labour’s £80k figure. Top 5% is broadly correct.
Labour would have been better off saying £100k, which is a ‘threshold number’ for many between rich and others, bu there are close to a million people between £80k and £100k (including loads who are avoiding the current personal allowance withdrawal at £100k).
Opponents would be best pointing out that it affects anyone earning slightly more than an MP, and asking if the £80k figure will rise in line with an MP salary as inflation raises the latter.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Oh, there’s nothing persuasive about it.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
What's wrong with saying you don't mind high taxes and think other people shouldn't mind it too? I also don't mind high taxes and I think other people shouldn't mind so much either. Why is that such an awful thing to say? You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but you seem unable to bear anyone saying anything you disagree with, which seems odd.
It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property.
Taxes aren't theft, they are the means by which the community pays for communal goods and services and ensures that the poor are not left destitute. We all benefit from those services and from living in a more decent and equal society. And it is reasonable that those with the most resources should make the greatest contribution. This should just be common sense, I wonder how as a society we have created people with such extreme views as you, it's sad. Incidentally, if actual thieves broke into your house and stole your property then without a state to enforce property rights and apprehend the thieves you would be fucked.
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
The current Prime Minister has sought to suspend democracy to impose a long term policy that no one voted for. I have far more concerns about the future of democracy under Boris Johnson than under Jeremy Corbyn. I cannot comprehend why you could conclude differently on the evidence available.
Alistair, I anticipated your response, but didn't have enough characters to write my response to it! Which was that proroguing parliament, on legal advice, then unproroguing ir after being overruled, does not seem to me to be in the same league as what Labour is openly proposing - never mind what I fear they would do. I am confident the machanics of Liberal Democracy would still be in place afer five years of Boris. I could not say the same after five years of Jeremy.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
The guy was either a liar or an idiot.
Or he is someone on 80 grand who doesn't feel "well off" - with a mortgage and other costs.
We have some on here (and not just Tories - I recall a great ululation on the capping of child credits for the "better off")
Someone on here last night (I'm sorry I don't remember who) made the point about the manifesto commitment to remove the marriage allowance. This will definitely hit those outside of the 5% bracket (as well as some within it).
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
ective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Hey, I love you too. But what's that got to do with the discussion of whether rich people necessarily object to higher taxes?
I’d respect you more if you played with a straight bat and didn’t try your nakedly transparent political spin on me (which insults my intelligence) and reads like a masterclass in backwards-pass rationalisation and confirmation bias.
You’re not an MP anymore. So stop it.
I think he means "stop saying things I disagree with in a persuasive way".
Oh, there’s nothing persuasive about it.
He’s saying I don’t mind high taxes (because I’m an ideologue) so you shouldn’t either.
What's wrong with saying you don't mind high taxes and think other people shouldn't mind it too? I also don't mind high taxes and I think other people shouldn't mind so much either. Why is that such an awful thing to say? You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but you seem unable to bear anyone saying anything you disagree with, which seems odd.
It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property.
Taxes aren't theft, they are the means by which the community pays for communal goods and services and ensures that the poor are not left destitute. We all benefit from those services and from living in a more decent and equal society. And it is reasonable that those with the most resources should make the greatest contribution. This should just be common sense, I wonder how as a society we have created people with such extreme views as you, it's sad. Incidentally, if actual thieves broke into your house and stole your property then without a state to enforce property rights and apprehend the thieves you would be fucked.
Most thieves aren't apprehended anyway - and what good to you is it if they are, You still remain burgled and your property gone.
Insurance, which you pay for, and choose to pay for replaces the goods you lost. Not the State.
Why the fuck was Fiona Bunce not stepping in to point out the member of the public was a total fucking Moron?
That was absolutely excruciating to watch.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
Blimey, Burgon is correct here.
Burgon flubed hard here. He should have have the stats to hand to point out the median wage is 22 grand and the mean around 30 grand.
But I have a lot of sympathy in the face of such idiocy. The women next to the questioner goig "absolute rubbish" when Burgon said he only earned 40 grand as a solicitor was the shit cherry on top of the poo cake.
What you are missing is... it doesn't matter a damn how thick a voter is, if people like that guy think Labour are going to screw them, others in a similar position are going to think exactly the same. 80k is good money, but its not huge... and people like him are paying a feck of a lot of tax anyway.
Its the same principle of people hating inheritance tax, even if they are never going to pay any on pay any, they instinctively hate the tax.
And Labour's manifesto promises to reverse the Osborne inheritance tax cut which was hugely popular and increase income tax for those earning over £80 000, anyone owning shares or dividends will also be hit by making the tax rate on them equivalent to income tax as will anyone who works for a company or buys from a company through the corporation tax hike leading to wage cuts, job cuts and price rises.
As the IFS have also pointed out that will have to just be for starters
This is a very big one... running a Ltd company and paying yourself a dividend instead of a salary. Though not a policy I disagree with and is just tax avoidance.
It’s not tax avoidance, it’s a recognition that the government gives you for risking your own capital. If returns on capital are taxed the same as income, people won’t bother starting their own businesses and will settle for getting a salary from an employer.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
The guy was either a liar or an idiot.
Or he is someone on 80 grand who doesn't feel "well off" - with a mortgage and other costs.
We have some on here (and not just Tories - I recall a great ululation on the capping of child credits for the "better off")
Someone on here last night (I'm sorry I don't remember who) made the point about the manifesto commitment to remove the marriage allowance. This will definitely hit those outside of the 5% bracket (as well as some within it).
I think I lost any hope of getting the married couples allowance well before I got to 80k. IIRC it goes at the point that one of you goes into the higher rate band, around 45k?
It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property.
Taxes are already high. Jez is making them punitively so.
I disagree. I paid higher tax living in Switzerland, which is scarcely known for its rampant socialism.Tax in Denmark was higher still.
A problem is that we can all point to things we don't want money spent on, so the willingness to contribute to a pool of Government spending is more limited than if we could pick and choose. But consent to jointly paying for whatever we collectively decide through elections are the priorities is part of the basic democratic deal. Sometimes we like the outcome, sometimes not, but the basic system makes sense.
I do quite like the system in some European countries that you can nominate a proportion of your tax to go to specific causes. Obviously the Government can then a bit cynically divert money they would have spent on those to less popular things that they think necessary, but it at least gives a greater sense of buy-in.
I find this hatred of the 4 day week mind boggling. Sure, people may be concerned with loss of earnings, but alongside other Labour policies (as all of these policies should), it is obvious that they plan a pretty radical reshaping of work and the economy anyway, and this is part of that.
I also assume it isn't a mandatory item, as much as a weekend rate for the 5th day, and possibly Sunday rates for Sat and Sunday?
But also from an ideological perspective, it just makes sense. The more automation there is, the less work there
The lefty academic in me then turns to Marx, who would argue you could just have the automated work be a public benefit for all, and people work less hours and get more. This is what ownership of means of production means in the modern world; why should some billionaire be able to build a mostly automated factory and have infinite profit off of it when, actually, labourers had to build it, people had to design it, resources had to extracted by miners and whatnot. Even those innovators who design automation don't tend to get the profits from it, because the corporation is allowed to own their ideas.
I half agree with you. There’s a a debate to be had on how you get there but I could see your logic applying in some places. The really obvious one is factory work but you could also see it some jobs we currently think of as highly skilled. Bits of accountancy for example.
However it can’t ever be an option for NHS workers, for whom there will always be 24/7 demand even if parts of the job are automated; or the police; or the more creative/strategic sides of work.
You are right that we need to think about the workplace of the future, and that that four day weeks for some jobs might be part of it. But I suspect we part there. You couldn’t, or perhaps shouldn’t bankrupt the NHS by imposing extra costs to fifth day working or requiring the hiring of another person.
I think the end logic is that the “four day workers“ will generally earn less In real terms (albeit more than today in cash terms) while the “five day workers” earn the same. The best way to get there is to let the market do its thing, within certain regulations.
Richard_Tyndall said: "It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property."
Sounds like Robert Nozick, the philosopher, who argued that government shouldn`t seek to confiscate a person`s wealth that has been acquired legally.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
This surely can't be true? I'm pro-choice also but this is as good as murder. For those of you with children imagine the situation the day before they were born they could have been aborted. Surely this would be legalised murder?
At this point in a baby's development they are a fully living being and there can be no medical benefits to the mother of an abortion. This is a bonkers policy. It makes me feel sick.
I assume it is just a badly worded statement / purposefully viewed in the most unflattering interpretation 🤷♂️
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
The current Prime Minister has sought to suspend democracy to impose a long term policy that no one voted for. I have far more concerns about the future of democracy under Boris Johnson than under Jeremy Corbyn. I cannot comprehend why you could conclude differently on the evidence available.
Alistair, I anticipated your response, but didn't have enough characters to write my response to it! Which was that proroguing parliament, on legal advice, then unproroguing ir after being overruled, does not seem to me to be in the same league as what Labour is openly proposing - never mind what I fear they would do. I am confident the machanics of Liberal Democracy would still be in place afer five years of Boris. I could not say the same after five years of Jeremy.
Suspending democracy in order to impose a policy that no one voted for was the most serious assault on the country's democracy in the lifetimes of any of us. I have no idea why you have any confidence that a Prime Minister willing to do that would leave the mechanics of liberal democracy in place. All the available evidence suggests that is a completely unfounded assertion.
It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property.
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
The current Prime Minister has sought to suspend democracy to impose a long term policy that no one voted for. I have far more concerns about the future of democracy under Boris Johnson than under Jeremy Corbyn. I cannot comprehend why you could conclude differently on the evidence available.
Alistair, I anticipated your response, but didn't have enough characters to write my response to it! Which was that proroguing parliament, on legal advice, then unproroguing ir after being overruled, does not seem to me to be in the same league as what Labour is openly proposing - never mind what I fear they would do. I am confident the machanics of Liberal Democracy would still be in place afer five years of Boris. I could not say the same after five years of Jeremy.
Suspending democracy in order to impose a policy that no one voted for was the most serious assault on the country's democracy in the lifetimes of any of us. I have no idea why you have any confidence that a Prime Minister willing to do that would leave the mechanics of liberal democracy in place. All the available evidence suggests that is a completely unfounded assertion.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Casino Rachman is employing the pluralis majestatis.
With your routine linguistic gymnastics you come across as someone who's desperately trying to convince yourself (and others) that you're cleverer than you actually are, but you're subconsciously rather insecure about it.
What is the matter with you? Did you lose a penny this morning?
@Dura_Ace - I am glad you turned up. I was thinking of paging you when I noticed CR's pomposity gland was inflating.....
You’ve posted like a child on here for years, with your juvenile emojis in every single post and excessive use of exclamation marks.
You were unreadable when you were a BOO’er well to the right of me and you are unreadable now you’re to the left of me too.
Maybe it’s not your fault. You’re just not very bright.
Noting the last rather nasty and offensive sentence; are you Mr Royale, in all your pomposity, not still a supporter of the most idiotic "philosophy" of the current era, namely Brexit? The policy that is mainly supported by those of lower IQ levels? Take the beam out of thine own eye.
Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.
There are three ways to square that circle -
1. The company chooses lesser profit 2. The company cuts back on investment 3. The company cuts jobs
Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.
4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
I am pro choice but that seems excessive if not just plain wrong.
This surely can't be true? I'm pro-choice also but this is as good as murder. For those of you with children imagine the situation the day before they were born they could have been aborted. Surely this would be legalised murder?
At this point in a baby's development they are a fully living being and there can be no medical benefits to the mother of an abortion. This is a bonkers policy. It makes me feel sick.
I can only assume this is fake news. Not even Mr. Thicky is this thick.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
The guy was either a liar or an idiot.
Or he is someone on 80 grand who doesn't feel "well off" - with a mortgage and other costs.
We have some on here (and not just Tories - I recall a great ululation on the capping of child credits for the "better off")
Someone on here last night (I'm sorry I don't remember who) made the point about the manifesto commitment to remove the marriage allowance. This will definitely hit those outside of the 5% bracket (as well as some within it).
The IFS covered this I think - but their website is currently down.
Casino Rachman is employing the pluralis majestatis.
With your routine linguistic gymnastics you come across as someone who's desperately trying to convince yourself (and others) that you're cleverer than you actually are, but you're subconsciously rather insecure about it.
What is the matter with you? Did you lose a penny this morning?
@Dura_Ace - I am glad you turned up. I was thinking of paging you when I noticed CR's pomposity gland was inflating.....
You’ve posted like a child on here for years, with your juvenile emojis in every single post and excessive use of exclamation marks.
You were unreadable when you were a BOO’er well to the right of me and you are unreadable now you’re to the left of me too.
Maybe it’s not your fault. You’re just not very bright.
I just do not put much effort in for PB. Go and polish your shillings Ebeneezer.
These are arbitrary numbers, it depends where you live, if you have kids, whether your partner is working etc. In my view if your family income allows you to buy a 4 bedroom house in the catchment area for a good state secondary school in your local housing market with an 80% LTV repayment mortgage and service it at 4% interest rates and leaves enough money over to go on a long haul family holiday once a year then you are rich. In London that means earning amounts of money that, if you live in Hartlepool, will look ridiculous.
You are comfortably off, you are not rich.
Rich means money is no object. Ever.
Rich is a relative term which means different things to different people.
I think rich means "you have a salary I'd love to have, you bastard."
Not necessarily. I've been on £100K+ for a few years now through various jobs etc. - I feel reasonably rich, and I'm happy to pay more to make the society around me better, and I know a good few people in a similar position. We can afford it, and it's worth it to make Britain healthier. Sure, we can and in most cases do give to charity, but it's better if it's a collective effort.
You’re a deceptive and highly manipulative ideologue who cloaks your shenanigans in politeness.
So, we ignore what you say.
Who is this "we"? I suspect most posters welcome NP's comments which are always polite and often insightful. Sure he tries to put the best spin he can on Labour's polices but he does ramp mindlessly like a couple of the Tory posters I could name.
Your's are usually readable but you also often come across as intolerant and with a big chip on your shoulder.
But he is fcking hilarious, so there is that.
He is at the very least disingenuous - he describes the ward he represents in Godalming as made up of "middle class owner occupiers" and who are supportive of a social house building when in fact Binscombe, which is his ward and is entirely unrepresentative of the broader town, can be charitably described as a down at heel council estate where some residents think its ok to leave unwanted furniture in what passes for their front gardens.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.
There are three ways to square that circle -
1. The company chooses lesser profit 2. The company cuts back on investment 3. The company cuts jobs
Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.
4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.
There are three ways to square that circle -
1. The company chooses lesser profit 2. The company cuts back on investment 3. The company cuts jobs
Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.
4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, nearly doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
Oh - and with no probation period for new employees as full employment rights are given immediately.
Polling on support for abortion at eight and a half months would be worth a look.
Otherwise known as murder.
The poster writes itself.
An image of a beautiful baby.
"Emily was born a week premature.
Labour says her mother should be allowed to have killed her."
No poster. Abortion is a conscience not party political issue and that should continue.
I entirely support the mother's right to choose to have an abortion. But within time limits. We can discuss those time limits - whether the current limit is too late in the term. We can discuss abortions beyond that where it is shown the foetus has some massive problem. Or where the mother's life is threatened by carrying to full term.
But who would justify a system where our NHS staff are being asked to abort a healthy near-full term baby that cries until it dies?
Extremely weird fantasies you have.
btw the vote to repeal those sections of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 in Northern Ireland (which seems to be what Labour is proposing to extend to England and Wales) was passed 332 votes to 99 in July this year in the house of commons, to general approval. This came into effect in October in N. Ireland. Unsurprisingly, I haven't heard any reports since then of healthy near-full-term babies being aborted and crying until they die. Your spin on this is even more ridiculous than the Catholic Herald's.
Morning all and on thread I agreed with the suggestion from others that members of the Assembly should have had their salaries stopped when they downed tools.
Meanwhile back in Labour Land, this morning Richard Leonard is launching Scottish Labour's manifesto with the flagship policy of free school meals for all children. Only problem is that even if SLAB wins all 59 Scottish seats and all 632 Mainland GB seats, it cannot deliver the policy. It is a devolved issue so it is for Nicola Sturgeon to deliver! You couldn't make it up!
Why would ‘Scottish Labour’ even release a separate manifesto for the U.K. government elections, when so much policy is devolved?
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
It was not for party conferences. Not even the government had the nerve to suggest that.
Polling on support for abortion at eight and a half months would be worth a look.
Otherwise known as murder.
The poster writes itself.
An image of a beautiful baby.
"Emily was born a week premature.
Labour says her mother should be allowed to have killed her."
No poster. Abortion is a conscience not party political issue and that should continue.
I entirely support the mother's right to choose to have an abortion. But within time limits. We can discuss those time limits - whether the current limit is too late in the term. We can discuss abortions beyond that where it is shown the foetus has some massive problem. Or where the mother's life is threatened by carrying to full term.
But who would justify a system where our NHS staff are being asked to abort a healthy near-full term baby that cries until it dies?
Having worked 'near', although admittedly not on, a Neo-Natal unit I'm sure most staff would refuse to do that. Anyway, in such circumstances, what's wrong with adopting?
From a philosophical perspective, it is fair to say excessive taxation is theft, but it depends on your definition of theft. Marxists believe property is theft. Others would call tax redistribution. Personally I don't mind a certain amount of tax as it is a necessary evil. Tax for tax sake is never a good thing.
My own view is that it is perfectly acceptable that people that take personal risk should get greater reward than those who take minimal risk in a nice safe job. It is one of the reasons I object to the insane amount of money that many GPs leach from the public purse; they want the rewards of entrepreneurs without any risk. Nobody makes a fuss because they are part of (but semi-detached when it suits) the holy cow NHS
Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.
There are three ways to square that circle -
1. The company chooses lesser profit 2. The company cuts back on investment 3. The company cuts jobs
Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.
4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, nearly doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
Oh - and with no probation period for new employees as full employment rights are given immediately.
What could go wrong?
Who is going to hire a 16 year old with zero experience with no probation period on £10 per hour? Unless that 16 year old has a glittering for that age CV eg straight A's and Duke of Edinburgh awards and a prefect etc etc
Within a few years we would see youth unemployment at 40% or more.
On the whole NPXMP thing - I have always found Nick to be personable and he stumped up on our bet when Boris won the London mayoralty in 2008 - but I always keep in mind that he is a Eurocommunist and despite living in Denmark he thought society was suffering so much it needed communism -
being a communist in Denmark is indicative of someone passionately convinced that the state should direct pretty much everything (we already spend 51% of GDP via state spending)- in his time Nick has pragmatically accepted the changes in the Labour party as he perhaps feels that is the best way to achieve his ambition - a country run as a democratic communist society. - Corbyn is the best news for people like Nick in a long time.
So, yes I think Nick is definitely an ideologue, a committed communist though he may prefer socialist (but not a social democrat) but also a vary valuable voice on PB - his spin for socialism doesn't seem any more egregious than some of the opposite spin we see. Nick if you read this I hope you accept this is just my personal view of reading your posts over the past 10-15 years and I am sure you are a top bloke on a personal level; it's just for me communism is a huge con on the working class who always end up paying the price for the purity of the cause.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
It was not for party conferences. Not even the government had the nerve to suggest that.
Party Conferences and Queen's Speech.
The fact they proceeded with Party Conferences and Queen's Speech rather demonstrates that was the truth too.
Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.
There are three ways to square that circle -
1. The company chooses lesser profit 2. The company cuts back on investment 3. The company cuts jobs
Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.
4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, nearly doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
Oh - and with no probation period for new employees as full employment rights are given immediately.
What could go wrong?
Who is going to hire a 16 year old with zero experience with no probation period on £10 per hour? Unless that 16 year old has a glittering for that age CV eg straight A's and Duke of Edinburgh awards and a prefect etc etc
Within a few years we would see youth unemployment at 40% or more.
Looks like we're going to need freedom of movement then.
You won't be able to move in Paris/Berlin/Madrid for all the young British working in the coffee shops and restaurants.
Oh and to answer your question directly : They'll be fitted nicely into unionised State companies. Those with the right, ahem, political heritage and outlook.
Labour's proposals come with a high risk of failure and unintended consequences. They are woefully optimistic. They assume a tax base that doesn't up sticks and move away, taking their businesses and their jobs with them.
Some policies are well intentioned. Some just driven by spite and envy, hoping that will appeal to the spite and envy of their base.
It is not a package for moving through the uncertainties caused by Brexit. So we can assume they aren't going to be implementing Brexit. The 52% will take note.
On the contrary, it is predicated on Brexit. No way that a lot of it would get through EU regulations and european courts.
Taxes are already high. Jez is making them punitively so.
I disagree. I paid higher tax living in Switzerland, which is scarcely known for its rampant socialism.Tax in Denmark was higher still.
A problem is that we can all point to things we don't want money spent on, so the willingness to contribute to a pool of Government spending is more limited than if we could pick and choose. But consent to jointly paying for whatever we collectively decide through elections are the priorities is part of the basic democratic deal. Sometimes we like the outcome, sometimes not, but the basic system makes sense.
I do quite like the system in some European countries that you can nominate a proportion of your tax to go to specific causes. Obviously the Government can then a bit cynically divert money they would have spent on those to less popular things that they think necessary, but it at least gives a greater sense of buy-in.
Where in Switzerland were you living?
Switzerland has massively higher salaries than everywhere else to compensate. Much much lower corp tax.
Agree on the nomination thing though. I also think people should be able to volunteer tax levels. Those that believe we should spend more on the salaries and pensions of public sector workers could voluntarily pay more tax. We could see if it matched the numbers who vote Labour. Perhaps not!
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
It was not for party conferences. Not even the government had the nerve to suggest that.
Party Conferences and Queen's Speech.
The fact they proceeded with Party Conferences and Queen's Speech rather demonstrates that was the truth too.
Get real. The prorogation was unprecedented and of unprecedented length at a time of national crisis. The fact that the government refused to give any statement to the court on oath as to its reasons tells you everything you need to know as to the real reasons.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
It was not for party conferences. Not even the government had the nerve to suggest that.
Party Conferences and Queen's Speech.
The fact they proceeded with Party Conferences and Queen's Speech rather demonstrates that was the truth too.
Get real. The prorogation was unprecedented and of unprecedented length at a time of national crisis. The fact that the government refused to give any statement to the court on oath as to its reasons tells you everything you need to know as to the real reasons.
Only racists and extremists...believe that Islam = Burka there's over a billion Muslims across the globe who don't wear the burka.
I see the Burka more often on the streets of London than I do on the streets (to be precise, inside the malls) of Jakarta, capital of the country with the world's largest Muslim population.
I see 1-2% of those in Islamic dress, in a Muslim country in the Middle East, wearing a full face covering.
I might be missing something here, but is this not helpful to Labour? I'm not sure why they are complaining.
A cynic might wonder who this man is and if he really does earn what he says he does.
Is he really on 80K a year? Looks like a down and out.
There were a series of quite posh "guests" on question time about a month ago who all spoke eloquently about how much they enjoy zero hour contracts. It would not surprise me at all if they choose someone dishevelled for the 80k is normal argument and someone looking great for promoting zero hours.
The BBC needs to manage the propoganda party spinners better.
The QT Audience, as @NickPalmer alluded to earlier, is increasingly filled with members of local parties. The BBC need to get a grip on this, if they can’t have an impartial audience (rather than one full of partisan opinions on all sides) they’re probably better off long term just canning the show.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
The game was always that the remain majority of the Commons would, no matter what the Gov't did aided by a compliant speaker be able to absolubtely avoid and would avoid leaving the EU without a deal.
The Tories would then be and be seen to be in effect the opposition/insurgents who would be thwarted by parliament.
Johnson was always counting on the opposition to stop him I think, and they duly did - a no deal Brexit would have been disastrous as people (Even leavers) would quickly have forgotten ever voting for it.
How would the prorogation have led to no deal? Wasn't it due to end before the 31 October?
Followed by the Queen's Speech, followed by days of debate on the Queen's Speech, followed by running down the clock by procedural devices in the two Houses.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Party conferences, wasn't it?
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
It was not for party conferences. Not even the government had the nerve to suggest that.
Party Conferences and Queen's Speech.
The fact they proceeded with Party Conferences and Queen's Speech rather demonstrates that was the truth too.
Get real. The prorogation was unprecedented and of unprecedented length at a time of national crisis. The fact that the government refused to give any statement to the court on oath as to its reasons tells you everything you need to know as to the real reasons.
Actually there was plenty of precedent. There had been much longer lengths of time in previous precedents.
Infrastructure yes and all parties are proposing more infrastructure spending. However only a small fraction of the Labour spending plans are on infrastructure . . . and by taxing R&D, by taxing Investment etc that will slow investment into infrastructure in this country not increase it!
You seem to sometimes look for arguments with me? I said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity".
But its not true. Look across the world at repeated failed Marxist experiments and you will see plenty of infrastructure that was built and never put to good use because there's no point investing in infrastructure if you haven't got a use for it at the end!
If corporations are facing eye watering tax increases especially targetted on Investment then why would they Invest to make the use of any new infrastructure?
Spending for spending's sake does not improve productivity.
Words have meaning. I am responsible for my words not Labours plan. I am not supporting Labours overall economic plan. My post said Labours plan was likely to be bad. It said infrastructure investment leads to productivity which it does. It even caveated (for the sake of pedants) that not all infrastructure investment is good for productivity, it can be ineffective.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment can lead to productivity improvements" then that I would 100% agree with.
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment increases productivity" I would have had my doubts but not replied. Investment can increase productivity but it can also decrease it if it is the wrong investment. See as an example the investment in Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) : https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181030-what-happened-to-berlins-ghost-airport
However you said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity" - that has no evidence behind it and by specifically taxing Research and Development and by specifically taxing Investment it seems quite improbable.
Brandenburg Airport is going to be studied by students for decades to come. Right now, with hindsight, they’d have been better off stripping the building back to the core physical structure a decade ago, then rebuilding it from scratch.
Polling on support for abortion at eight and a half months would be worth a look.
Otherwise known as murder.
The poster writes itself.
An image of a beautiful baby.
"Emily was born a week premature.
Labour says her mother should be allowed to have killed her."
No poster. Abortion is a conscience not party political issue and that should continue.
I entirely support the mother's right to choose to have an abortion. But within time limits. We can discuss those time limits - whether the current limit is too late in the term. We can discuss abortions beyond that where it is shown the foetus has some massive problem. Or where the mother's life is threatened by carrying to full term.
But who would justify a system where our NHS staff are being asked to abort a healthy near-full term baby that cries until it dies?
Having worked 'near', although admittedly not on, a Neo-Natal unit I'm sure most staff would refuse to do that. Anyway, in such circumstances, what's wrong with adopting?
Because the Catholic Church (who did a really good job of this) had their adoption agencies shut down for not being sufficiently LGBTQ+, and the local authority adoption services have gone so woke and PC that most prospective parents get turned down for the most trivial of reasons?
I might be missing something here, but is this not helpful to Labour? I'm not sure why they are complaining.
A cynic might wonder who this man is and if he really does earn what he says he does.
Is he really on 80K a year? Looks like a down and out.
There were a series of quite posh "guests" on question time about a month ago who all spoke eloquently about how much they enjoy zero hour contracts. It would not surprise me at all if they choose someone dishevelled for the 80k is normal argument and someone looking great for promoting zero hours.
The BBC needs to manage the propoganda party spinners better.
The QT Audience, as @NickPalmer alluded to earlier, is increasingly filled with members of local parties. The BBC need to get a grip on this, if they can’t have an impartial audience (rather than one full of partisan opinions on all sides) they’re probably better off long term just canning the show.
A simple solution if they want to keep the current audience would be to have the different party groups sit together in distinct sections, so the TV viewers know when someone responding got their ticket through the local labour/tory/green/ld/etc branch.
I appreciate many people dislike burkas and the assumptions underlying it (and to be honest I agree). But in that case agitate for burka delegislation. If something is legal you should be allowed to do it without unreasonable force placed against you. If you believe burka wearing should be legal then you have to allow people who wear burkas to earn a living.
Why couldn't Burgon step in the o point out he was a moron.
There is a saying, ‘takes one to know one.’
This is not true of morons, who are simply too thick to recognise each other.
You're not allowed to call the audience moronic as a politician even if it's true.
Anyway if that chap is a Doctor I'm glad he's not mine. I doubt he has any idea of how Bayes works for instance with that piss poor grasp of statistics
I think we live in a great country. A place where a innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year.
That’s a deeply unpleasant thing to say about someone
Which bit? The innumeracy, the argumentative, or the provincial? When the Chinese round up Uighurs and put them into concentration camps, I doubt they abuse them by saying "you can't add up and your colours are sooo Nineties!!!!"
(If it helps I rarely describe people as provincial, unless in the statistical sense. It is rather rude)
Comments
You are the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are filled with bile on almost a daily basis.
Where we might delve a little deeper is the 'one term' bit. Imagine for the sake of argument a Corbyn government which lasted to December 2024, by which time the countrt has suffered a fate not unlike that of Greece. We wouldn't be able to just turn the clock back to 2019, or 2016, or whatever date you want to go back to. Or ur ability to create wealth would for a variety of reasons have been severely diminished. Meanwhile, the overton window would have shiftef significantly - state funding of everything and interference in everything would be the norm. I It's almost impossible in a democracy to just turn the taps off overnight - look how long it took even the fairly determined George Osborne to make any inroads into the defecit that Gordon Brown had built up. The economic impact of one term of Corbyn government would last well over a decade.
And consider also that Corbyn and mamy of his allies have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with democracy. Look at the regimes they admire. Can we expect that once in power they will observe the democratic norms? Even looking at what has been openly proposed, they intend to exert much greater control over the print and broadcast media and the internet. They have set out ways in which they will radically change the franchise. John McDonnell has joked about imprisoning political opponents - and he's *probably* joking - but with unapologetic communists it's hard to be sure. Will the means be there in 2024 to remove them? Probably - but uncomfortably far from certainly. I don't know how anyone else feels, but it is this aspect of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, more than its economics, which frightens me. Even if the regime were to be completely benign - and the manifesto suggests that it will not be entirely so - the public and third sectors, and the machinery of government, would be stuffed with those who shared the Corbyn worldview.
A Prime Minister Corbyn is not an outcome with which I can happily flirt in the expectation that it might be easily reversed.
a[n] innumerate and argumentative man who cannot even choose the correct sized clothes, living in a provincial town can earn £80 000 per year
If you had just said "Infrastructure investment increases productivity" I would have had my doubts but not replied. Investment can increase productivity but it can also decrease it if it is the wrong investment. See as an example the investment in Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) : https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181030-what-happened-to-berlins-ghost-airport
However you said "Labours infrastructure investment increases productivitity" - that has no evidence behind it and by specifically taxing Research and Development and by specifically taxing Investment it seems quite improbable.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-manifesto-abortion-law-decriminalisation_uk_5dd428ebe4b08a4325e3a6f1
Once you start from that base there isn't much good you can say.
At this point in a baby's development they are a fully living being and there can be no medical benefits to the mother of an abortion. This is a bonkers policy. It makes me feel sick.
I also assume it isn't a mandatory item, as much as a weekend rate for the 5th day, and possibly Sunday rates for Sat and Sunday?
But trials seem to be positive so far:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/working-week-four-day-trial-new-zealand-successful-perpetual-guardian-a8454901.html
But also from an ideological perspective, it just makes sense. The more automation there is, the less work there is that needs people, the more people should be able to benefit from that automation. The main issue at the moment seems to be only the super rich are benefiting from this automation (through profit), whereas we could all be benefiting from it much more equally. Imagine if half of labour could be automated. The capitalist mindset is that this would be great for the owners and terrible for the workers; owners make profit selling cheap goods, but workers lose their jobs (whilst also unable to buy goods, making wealth inequality massive, and as Marxists would say, revolution inevitable). If we can half the working week, and the same amount of work is done, why shouldn't we?
The lefty academic in me then turns to Marx, who would argue you could just have the automated work be a public benefit for all, and people work less hours and get more. This is what ownership of means of production means in the modern world; why should some billionaire be able to build a mostly automated factory and have infinite profit off of it when, actually, labourers had to build it, people had to design it, resources had to extracted by miners and whatnot. Even those innovators who design automation don't tend to get the profits from it, because the corporation is allowed to own their ideas.
Always.
Many Tory voters are now ex Labour voters, who will they turn to when they feel betrayed? If the Tories repeat another decade of giving all the benefits of economic growth to the asset rich and none to workers then a far left government becomes inevitable in the next 10-15 years. To stop Corbynism, we need to restore a better balance between work and capital, between young and old.
An image of a beautiful baby.
"Emily was born a week premature.
Labour says her mother should be allowed to have killed her."
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1197818748482326528?s=20
I’ve laid out my arguments upthread which, oddly, no-one on the Left other than Jonathan seriously engaged with. Instead they preferred to rely on tired old troupes of rich v. poor and trying to leverage emotional blackmail.
If that happens don’t be surprised if some get emotional in response.
@Dura_Ace - I am glad you turned up. I was thinking of paging you when I noticed CR's pomposity gland was inflating.....
A problem is that we can all point to things we don't want money spent on, so the willingness to contribute to a pool of Government spending is more limited than if we could pick and choose. But consent to jointly paying for whatever we collectively decide through elections are the priorities is part of the basic democratic deal. Sometimes we like the outcome, sometimes not, but the basic system makes sense.
I do quite like the system in some European countries that you can nominate a proportion of your tax to go to specific causes. Obviously the Government can then a bit cynically divert money they would have spent on those to less popular things that they think necessary, but it at least gives a greater sense of buy-in.
I think Labour ought to clarify this further without delay.
A long read, but gives an understanding of where ‘champagne socialism’ originates.
https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/
Investing in infrastructure like Berlin’s Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport (BER) does the square root of f**k all to boost productivity if at the same time you are punitively taxing R&D and Investment and Corporations etc
So this story was complete bunk then, or do we think the ES has just caved to Labour because?
You were unreadable when you were a BOO’er well to the right of me and you are unreadable now you’re to the left of me too.
Maybe it’s not your fault. You’re just not very bright.
We have some on here (and not just Tories - I recall a great ululation on the capping of child credits for the "better off")
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1197807249261047810?s=20
But who would justify a system where our NHS staff are being asked to abort a healthy near-full term baby that cries until it dies?
Labour would have been better off saying £100k, which is a ‘threshold number’ for many between rich and others, bu there are close to a million people between £80k and £100k (including loads who are avoiding the current personal allowance withdrawal at £100k).
Opponents would be best pointing out that it affects anyone earning slightly more than an MP, and asking if the £80k figure will rise in line with an MP salary as inflation raises the latter.
Incidentally, if actual thieves broke into your house and stole your property then without a state to enforce property rights and apprehend the thieves you would be fucked.
Insurance, which you pay for, and choose to pay for replaces the goods you lost. Not the State.
Just sayin.
https://youtu.be/Y1T3VZwUZgo
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1197823001095524353?s=20
However it can’t ever be an option for NHS workers, for whom there will always be 24/7 demand even if parts of the job are automated; or the police; or the more creative/strategic sides of work.
You are right that we need to think about the workplace of the future, and that that four day weeks for some jobs might be part of it. But I suspect we part there. You couldn’t, or perhaps shouldn’t bankrupt the NHS by imposing extra costs to fifth day working or requiring the hiring of another person.
I think the end logic is that the “four day workers“ will generally earn less In real terms (albeit more than today in cash terms) while the “five day workers” earn the same. The best way to get there is to let the market do its thing, within certain regulations.
"It is advocating Government theft of people's income. I view it in the same way as I would someone advocating allowing thieves to break into my house and steal my property."
Sounds like Robert Nozick, the philosopher, who argued that government shouldn`t seek to confiscate a person`s wealth that has been acquired legally.
Why else do you think that Parliament was prorogued for so long? It certainly wasn't for the stated reason, because the government more or less forgot about the Queen's Speech as soon as it was delivered.
Oh.... and here are some emojis for you
And would Bercow have allowed the government to do those things you say?
What could go wrong?
btw the vote to repeal those sections of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 in Northern Ireland (which seems to be what Labour is proposing to extend to England and Wales) was passed 332 votes to 99 in July this year in the house of commons, to general approval.
This came into effect in October in N. Ireland. Unsurprisingly, I haven't heard any reports since then of healthy near-full-term babies being aborted and crying until they die. Your spin on this is even more ridiculous than the Catholic Herald's.
Good morning PB.
My own view is that it is perfectly acceptable that people that take personal risk should get greater reward than those who take minimal risk in a nice safe job. It is one of the reasons I object to the insane amount of money that many GPs leach from the public purse; they want the rewards of entrepreneurs without any risk. Nobody makes a fuss because they are part of (but semi-detached when it suits) the holy cow NHS
Within a few years we would see youth unemployment at 40% or more.
being a communist in Denmark is indicative of someone passionately convinced that the state should direct pretty much everything (we already spend 51% of GDP via state spending)- in his time Nick has pragmatically accepted the changes in the Labour party as he perhaps feels that is the best way to achieve his ambition - a country run as a democratic communist society. - Corbyn is the best news for people like Nick in a long time.
So, yes I think Nick is definitely an ideologue, a committed communist though he may prefer socialist (but not a social democrat) but also a vary valuable voice on PB - his spin for socialism doesn't seem any more egregious than some of the opposite spin we see. Nick if you read this I hope you accept this is just my personal view of reading your posts over the past 10-15 years and I am sure you are a top bloke on a personal level; it's just for me communism is a huge con on the working class who always end up paying the price for the purity of the cause.
The fact they proceeded with Party Conferences and Queen's Speech rather demonstrates that was the truth too.
You won't be able to move in Paris/Berlin/Madrid for all the young British working in the coffee shops and restaurants.
Oh and to answer your question directly : They'll be fitted nicely into unionised State companies. Those with the right, ahem, political heritage and outlook.
Indeed its spending by percentage for the state is close to what Scandinavian countries do . Are they bastions of Marxism .
Equally on the Tory NI change they’ve missed an open goal . What on earth are their media team doing .
Clearly the message should be after ten years of austerity the Tories are insulting you by giving you a paltry 85 quid a year more.
NEW THREAD
Agree on the nomination thing though. I also think people should be able to volunteer tax levels. Those that believe we should spend more on the salaries and pensions of public sector workers could voluntarily pay more tax. We could see if it matched the numbers who vote Labour. Perhaps not!
Moral issues have traditionally been free votes, that’s an astonishing policy if true.
Has the 15% Brexit vote gone to Labour or have the Tories managed to squeeze it?
If the tories did manage to take the bulk of the 15% brexit vote, there will be some unexpected tory gains in south Wales.
The Tories would then be and be seen to be in effect the opposition/insurgents who would be thwarted by parliament.
Johnson was always counting on the opposition to stop him I think, and they duly did - a no deal Brexit would have been disastrous as people (Even leavers) would quickly have forgotten ever voting for it.
I appreciate many people dislike burkas and the assumptions underlying it (and to be honest I agree). But in that case agitate for burka delegislation. If something is legal you should be allowed to do it without unreasonable force placed against you. If you believe burka wearing should be legal then you have to allow people who wear burkas to earn a living.
(If it helps I rarely describe people as provincial, unless in the statistical sense. It is rather rude)
wonder how many other Labour MPs will do something like this.