Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Anyway, back to St Theresa's stunning victory last week, that lifelong leftie Matthew Parris sums it up succinctly today, if a bit more generously than I would have.
0 -
narbs wrote:Anyway, back to St Theresa's stunning victory last week, that lifelong leftie Matthew Parris sums it up succinctly today, if a bit more generously than I would have.
He is a very good writer and makes a lot of sense.0 -
Very well put.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:narbs wrote:Anyway, back to St Theresa's stunning victory last week, that lifelong leftie Matthew Parris sums it up succinctly today, if a bit more generously than I would have.
He is a very good writer and makes a lot of sense.
total rubbish, she is a great PM and i want her to stay, i think i might join the Tory party and se if i can vote for her......
0 -
It'll cost you a bit more than it cost me to get involvedmamba80 wrote:total rubbish, she is a great PM and i want her to stay, i think i might join the Tory party and se if i can vote for her......
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/13/party-politics-cost-getting-involved-pitfalls
In the end the Tories will be quite pragmatic and if they feel she will hurt their prospects, she will go at some point. The party is more important than the leader."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
It'll cost you a bit more than it cost me to get involvedmamba80 wrote:total rubbish, she is a great PM and i want her to stay, i think i might join the Tory party and se if i can vote for her......
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/13/party-politics-cost-getting-involved-pitfalls
In the end the Tories will be quite pragmatic and if they feel she will hurt their prospects, she will go at some point. The party is more important than the leader.
mmm £25 and wait 3 months and i can vote! maybe for boris
Seriously though, Hammond, a bit more pragmatic and has the human touch... if thats even possible for a modern tory :shock:0 -
Go for it. I'm not so hypocritical or so far up my own ar$e that I would be bothered by someone doing that (mentioning no namesmamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It'll cost you a bit more than it cost me to get involvedmamba80 wrote:total rubbish, she is a great PM and i want her to stay, i think i might join the Tory party and se if i can vote for her......
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/13/party-politics-cost-getting-involved-pitfalls
In the end the Tories will be quite pragmatic and if they feel she will hurt their prospects, she will go at some point. The party is more important than the leader.
mmm £25 and wait 3 months and i can vote! maybe for boris
Seriously though, Hammond, a bit more pragmatic and has the human touch... if thats even possible for a modern tory :shock: ). Its £25 in the coffers as well.
My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Hammond! Fuck my old boots..mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
It'll cost you a bit more than it cost me to get involvedmamba80 wrote:total rubbish, she is a great PM and i want her to stay, i think i might join the Tory party and se if i can vote for her......
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/13/party-politics-cost-getting-involved-pitfalls
In the end the Tories will be quite pragmatic and if they feel she will hurt their prospects, she will go at some point. The party is more important than the leader.
mmm £25 and wait 3 months and i can vote! maybe for boris
Seriously though, Hammond, a bit more pragmatic and has the human touch... if thats even possible for a modern tory :shock:Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Go for it. I'm not so hypocritical or so far up my own ar$e that I would be bothered by someone doing that (mentioning no namesmamba80 wrote:
mmm £25 and wait 3 months and i can vote! maybe for boris
Seriously though, Hammond, a bit more pragmatic and has the human touch... if thats even possible for a modern tory :shock: ). Its £25 in the coffers as well.
My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'.
hammond because he isnt a tw@t over brexit!
yeah i thought rudd too but she has a tiny majority.... did come across very angry in the leaders debate but her dad had just died so understandable.
Ruth Davidson though would be an inspired choice, she has extensive experience in opposition so would fit straight in after the next GE lol! she is a formidable politician no doubt, i could vote for her if the english tory party became a little more like their Scottish version!
whoever they choose - if they do - and whoever wins, we need a decent opposition and no huge majorities either, turbulent times ahead and no party has a monopoly on wisdom.0 -
-
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Not entirely sure about the skeletons in Rudd's background in these days when politicians are supposed to be squeaky clean. Well, I suppose she did get some good advice on tax avoidance...Stevo 666 wrote:My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ared-unfit
Ruth Davidson would certainly be an interesting one - quite a contrast from Maybot, as she does seem to speak with genuine conviction, and is prepared to mix it with people she might not agree with. She's got a sharp mind and intellect - something I'm increasingly convinced May hasn't.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
Not entirely sure about the skeletons in Rudd's background in these days when politicians are supposed to be squeaky clean. Well, I suppose she did get some good advice on tax avoidance...Stevo 666 wrote:My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ared-unfit
Ruth Davidson would certainly be an interesting one - quite a contrast from Maybot, as she does seem to speak with genuine conviction, and is prepared to mix it with people she might not agree with. She's got a sharp mind and intellect - something I'm increasingly convinced May hasn't.
this made me spit my beer 0 -
Davidson is one for the medium to long term I think as I believe she still has a job to do in Scotland.briantrumpet wrote:
Not entirely sure about the skeletons in Rudd's background in these days when politicians are supposed to be squeaky clean. Well, I suppose she did get some good advice on tax avoidance...Stevo 666 wrote:My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ared-unfit
Ruth Davidson would certainly be an interesting one - quite a contrast from Maybot, as she does seem to speak with genuine conviction, and is prepared to mix it with people she might not agree with. She's got a sharp mind and intellect - something I'm increasingly convinced May hasn't.
As for the Guardian making allegations on tax avoidance, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#17b4522b5969
It's my old favourite, leftie hypocrisy
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
0
-
Not of my making but the economic message is not too far offbriantrumpet wrote:
I'll just go look for a graphic that says the Lib Dems have a grate chance of being power in the foreseeable future."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh yes, that too, though it doesn't alter the facts in the case reported. Private Eye has been onto the Guardian's holier-than-thou position on tax avoidance for ages, as well as Rudd.Stevo 666 wrote:As for the Guardian making allegations on tax avoidance, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#17b4522b5969
It's my old favourite, leftie hypocrisy0 -
I make a point of ignoring articles from stinking hypocrites.briantrumpet wrote:
Oh yes, that too, though it doesn't alter the facts in the case reported. Private Eye has been onto the Guardian's holier-than-thou position on tax avoidance for ages, as well as Rudd.Stevo 666 wrote:As for the Guardian making allegations on tax avoidance, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#17b4522b5969
It's my old favourite, leftie hypocrisy"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Davidson is one for the medium to long term I think as I believe she still has a job to do in Scotland.briantrumpet wrote:
Not entirely sure about the skeletons in Rudd's background in these days when politicians are supposed to be squeaky clean. Well, I suppose she did get some good advice on tax avoidance...Stevo 666 wrote:My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ared-unfit
Ruth Davidson would certainly be an interesting one - quite a contrast from Maybot, as she does seem to speak with genuine conviction, and is prepared to mix it with people she might not agree with. She's got a sharp mind and intellect - something I'm increasingly convinced May hasn't.
As for the Guardian making allegations on tax avoidance, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#17b4522b5969
It's my old favourite, leftie hypocrisy
hold the front page! i would like to think that the owners of a newspaper do not have editorial control, so what the owners do, isnt really anything to do with what the journo's write and the editor then approves yes?
as i ve said to you before, its down to hmrc/gov to determine tax law, not companies or individuals an we both agreed on this.0 -
No. The owners have - or should have - a say in the policy and approach to what is published. Its still hypoctisy. Following your logic you could argue that large corporates don't have control of the details of finance so their chief exec isn't responsible for my tax planning then?mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Davidson is one for the medium to long term I think as I believe she still has a job to do in Scotland.briantrumpet wrote:
Not entirely sure about the skeletons in Rudd's background in these days when politicians are supposed to be squeaky clean. Well, I suppose she did get some good advice on tax avoidance...Stevo 666 wrote:My money would be on Amber Rudd. Or longer term, I could see Ruth Davidson making a good leader if she could be persuaded to 'come down South'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ared-unfit
Ruth Davidson would certainly be an interesting one - quite a contrast from Maybot, as she does seem to speak with genuine conviction, and is prepared to mix it with people she might not agree with. She's got a sharp mind and intellect - something I'm increasingly convinced May hasn't.
As for the Guardian making allegations on tax avoidance, let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#17b4522b5969
It's my old favourite, leftie hypocrisy
hold the front page! i would like to think that the owners of a newspaper do not have editorial control, so what the owners do, isnt really anything to do with what the journo's write and the editor then approves yes?
as i ve said to you before, its down to hmrc/gov to determine tax law, not companies or individuals an we both agreed on this.
Tax law in this case is not really the point as both are acting legally in tjis respect. Except that one is accusing the other of doing something while doing exactly the same sort of thing themselves. Pretty much defines hypocrisy in my books. That said, looking at the state of the Guardians finances and the bombardment with begging messages on their website, they might not be hypocrites for that much longer "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Do they? the SUN and Times are oft very different, same owner, i think editors are given a fairly wide scope.
my point was that so long as its all above board, then fair enough, if its abused, up to gov to change law, i dont hold with this they must pay their fair share etc.... though a gov minister avoiding tax is nt a great way to behave, they need to be squeaky clean now a days.0 -
If you are the owner of a newspaper and you let your journos write what they want, it doesn't absolve you of responsibility or liability does it.mamba80 wrote:Do they? the SUN and Times are oft very different, same owner, i think editors are given a fairly wide scope.
my point was that so long as its all above board, then fair enough, if its abused, up to gov to change law, i dont hold with this they must pay their fair share etc.... though a gov minister avoiding tax is nt a great way to behave, they need to be squeaky clean now a days.
They have both paid their fair share according to the law. Looking at the Rudd article, the tax 'avoidance' is simply routine tax planning such as using losses against future profits - not even a moral case to answer there IMO. My point is that one party is pointing the finger at the other claiming they have done wrong while doing the same thing themselves. Ferkin leftie hypocrites."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
If you are the owner of a newspaper and you let your journos write what they want, it doesn't absolve you of responsibility or liability does it.mamba80 wrote:Do they? the SUN and Times are oft very different, same owner, i think editors are given a fairly wide scope.
my point was that so long as its all above board, then fair enough, if its abused, up to gov to change law, i dont hold with this they must pay their fair share etc.... though a gov minister avoiding tax is nt a great way to behave, they need to be squeaky clean now a days.
They have both paid their fair share according to the law. Looking at the Rudd article, the tax 'avoidance' is simply routine tax planning such as using losses against future profits - not even a moral case to answer there IMO. My point is that one party is pointing the finger at the other claiming they have done wrong while doing the same thing themselves. Ferkin leftie hypocrites.
have you thought of some counselling for your anger issues toward Lefties?0 -
mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
If you are the owner of a newspaper and you let your journos write what they want, it doesn't absolve you of responsibility or liability does it.mamba80 wrote:Do they? the SUN and Times are oft very different, same owner, i think editors are given a fairly wide scope.
my point was that so long as its all above board, then fair enough, if its abused, up to gov to change law, i dont hold with this they must pay their fair share etc.... though a gov minister avoiding tax is nt a great way to behave, they need to be squeaky clean now a days.
They have both paid their fair share according to the law. Looking at the Rudd article, the tax 'avoidance' is simply routine tax planning such as using losses against future profits - not even a moral case to answer there IMO. My point is that one party is pointing the finger at the other claiming they have done wrong while doing the same thing themselves. Ferkin leftie hypocrites.
have you thought of some counselling for your anger issues toward Lefties?
Not angry, but it is a rich seam to mine. I do Liberal hypocrisy as well...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
....i think the Tories do hypocrisy as well, perhaps insisting on min turn outs in union ballots BUT having no such concerns for any other elections that suit them, is a good example.
or perhaps continually saying they ll be no snap election and then having one.... or is that classed as lying?
these things effect peoples lives, unlike where Abbott sends her kids,
incidentally, my extremely wealthy neighbour tried to send his kids to a state primary school but within a term or two they were in private, they were bullied for whom there father was, its not a straight fwd decision is it?0 -
My favourite is being called a snowflake by someone and when I call them a racist they get all upset.
Boo. Hoo.0 -
So if Abbott had her way, your neighbour wouldn't have the option of going private and his kids would get bullied for years. It's not her sending her kid private that affects people, it is her trying to deny others the same choice as she has exercised. 'Do as I say, don't do as I do...'mamba80 wrote:these things effect peoples lives, unlike where Abbott sends her kids,
incidentally, my extremely wealthy neighbour tried to send his kids to a state primary school but within a term or two they were in private, they were bullied for whom there father was, its not a straight fwd decision is it?
I agree the other things affect people. If unions can't call strikes on a whim (like the Southern Rail dispute which had a very small turn out), that makes my life better. Good point !"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How does calling you a snowflake make someone a racist?Rick Chasey wrote:My favourite is being called a snowflake by someone and when I call them a racist they get all upset.
Boo. Hoo.
Also I always think people should not be punished for telling the truth "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
