Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You've managed to complain about a reduction in poverty. Depressingly glass half empty mentality. Classic leftie whingeing with no alternative solution put forward.

I see a problem, I do what I can to help. I am part of the solution.
Funny thing is, I am not a left winger.

So what's the answer? No point moaning if you present no viable alternative to the incumbent system.

He had a Choice, cut taxes etc for middle earners or cut disability benefits? Cut Corp tax or spend money on education.... N h s...... He has done what he s done because of eu.

We'd be stupid to pretend that EU referendum considerations were not part of the thinking for this budget.

I presented evidence to show that disability payments were disproportionately high compared to other developed nations - nobody has refuted that.

I already explained several times and given a recent example of how cutting the headline tax rate can and does increase the overall tax take (I've been in the tax 'business' 25 years so more than a wild guess).

NHS and education spending are rising overall so what's your issue? No matter how much of other peoples money is spent you would never be happy I suspect. So feel free to pay more if you want...

mamba80

As i said Steve0, its not about making people pay more tax but at the end of the day, should you be seriously injured mtb ing, you want a local AE that can treat you properly, with an ambulance service that gets to you before you bleed to death - your BUPA wont help you in the first instance.

not educating kids for the modern working world and not funding the NHS, is very short sighted.

So, Osbourne is part running the economy based on winning a referendum that few really wanted ? (ukip had how many MP's before GE ?? yep ZERO) then that shows what idiots he and Cameron are.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

As i said Steve0, its not about making people pay more tax but at the end of the day, should you be seriously injured mtb ing, you want a local AE that can treat you properly, with an ambulance service that gets to you before you bleed to death - your BUPA wont help you in the first instance.

not educating kids for the modern working world and not funding the NHS, is very short sighted.

So, Osbourne is part running the economy based on winning a referendum that few really wanted ? (ukip had how many MP's before GE ?? yep ZERO) then that shows what idiots he and Cameron are.

You keep repeating this but it may transpire that over 50% of voters wanted it.
Over 4 million people voted UKIP which is really a one trick pony.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

As i said Steve0, its not about making people pay more tax but at the end of the day, should you be seriously injured mtb ing, you want a local AE that can treat you properly, with an ambulance service that gets to you before you bleed to death - your BUPA wont help you in the first instance.

not educating kids for the modern working world and not funding the NHS, is very short sighted.

So, Osbourne is part running the economy based on winning a referendum that few really wanted ? (ukip had how many MP's before GE ?? yep ZERO) then that shows what idiots he and Cameron are.

Stop banging on about the NHS underfunding. We pay more for it every year and this is one of the ringfenced areas. And when I have been injured they have been good so not sure why you are claiming otherwise.

Alternatively, pay some more tax.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

As i said Steve0, its not about making people pay more tax but at the end of the day, should you be seriously injured mtb ing, you want a local AE that can treat you properly, with an ambulance service that gets to you before you bleed to death - your BUPA wont help you in the first instance.

not educating kids for the modern working world and not funding the NHS, is very short sighted.

So, Osbourne is part running the economy based on winning a referendum that few really wanted ? (ukip had how many MP's before GE ?? yep ZERO) then that shows what idiots he and Cameron are.

Stop banging on about the NHS underfunding. We pay more for it every year and this is one of the ringfenced areas. And when I have been injured they have been good so not sure why you are claiming otherwise.

Alternatively, pay some more tax.

Bit of child arent you? as if any amount of extra tax i would pay would make a difference? i do wonder if your an accountant at all, some of the stuff you come out with is truely ridiculous, however...
from your fav ToryMail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

As i said Steve0, its not about making people pay more tax but at the end of the day, should you be seriously injured mtb ing, you want a local AE that can treat you properly, with an ambulance service that gets to you before you bleed to death - your BUPA wont help you in the first instance.

not educating kids for the modern working world and not funding the NHS, is very short sighted.

So, Osbourne is part running the economy based on winning a referendum that few really wanted ? (ukip had how many MP's before GE ?? yep ZERO) then that shows what idiots he and Cameron are.

You keep repeating this but it may transpire that over 50% of voters wanted it.
Over 4 million people voted UKIP which is really a one trick pony.

and dont 25% of ukip voters want to stay in EU?

my point is that BEFORE the announcement of a vote, there was nt the clamour for exit or as you say, UKIP would have garnered enough support for a few MP's, we do have a few by-elections.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what's the answer? No point moaning if you present no viable alternative to the incumbent system.

Which system?

pblakeney

Meanwhile, back in this Country.......
No references to the latest reports by the IFS or OBR? Wonder why?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35830754

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

As i said Steve0, its not about making people pay more tax but at the end of the day, should you be seriously injured mtb ing, you want a local AE that can treat you properly, with an ambulance service that gets to you before you bleed to death - your BUPA wont help you in the first instance.

not educating kids for the modern working world and not funding the NHS, is very short sighted.

So, Osbourne is part running the economy based on winning a referendum that few really wanted ? (ukip had how many MP's before GE ?? yep ZERO) then that shows what idiots he and Cameron are.

Stop banging on about the NHS underfunding. We pay more for it every year and this is one of the ringfenced areas. And when I have been injured they have been good so not sure why you are claiming otherwise.

Alternatively, pay some more tax.

Bit of child arent you? as if any amount of extra tax i would pay would make a difference? i do wonder if your an accountant at all, some of the stuff you come out with is truely ridiculous, however...
from your fav ToryMail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

If all the self righteous lefties did the same thing it would make a difference Like I said, lead by example because clearly most of them are too selfish to do it themselves.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what's the answer? No point moaning if you present no viable alternative to the incumbent system.

Which system?

Capitalism. Or neo-liberalism as whingeing lefties call it.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

So what's the answer? No point moaning if you present no viable alternative to the incumbent system.

Which system?

Capitalism. Or neo-liberalism as whingeing lefties call it.

Capitalism per se is not the problem.
How it is being applied is.

pinno

You have not even considered the concept of Neo-liberalism, as by the plain and simple definition of it that I provided. I'm not a whingeing leftie and I don't have rose tinted glasses.

What do you think of the post I wrote about the effects of Global Capitalism on the inhabitants of Colombia?
Why have you not understood my point about poverty and the plain fact that the Spectator article failed to prove in any way that global poverty has been alleviated?
What do you think of child labour and sweat shops?
What do you think of Apple using these sweatshops to assemble their iphones and ipads despite the fact that they are one of the biggest and most profitable organisations on the world?
What do you think about the deforestation of Brazil and Indonesia in the whole scheme of Global Capitalism (directly linked to profit, material consumptiom and energy)?
Why do you keep deflecting the bigger issues I have raised?
What do you think of the EDF and Chinese funding of a power station being built in the UK that will supply electricity at twice the current rate per kwh?
Why does the Sultan of Brunei need a gold plated aeroplane?
Why are there hundreds of billionaires and billions of people in poverty?
Why is it that there are huge companies making huge profits but despite that, they bend over backwards and go through hoops to avoid paying acceptable amounts of tax (in certain countries who play puppy dog)?
What do you think of the inhabitants of Bhopal who never got a penny after the Union Carbide disaster?
What do you think of the people who are burning off unwanted millions of tons of electronic components and getting poisoned by the toxic waste/fumes?
What do you think of the huge plastic island in the middle of the Pacific - a direct result of the over use of plastics, which has a direct link with the petroleum industry?
What do you think of Bouganville Island where the people allowed mining to take place by the Australians and when the mines ran dry, they filled up with water, spewed the leachate and the local inhabitants suffered only to be subjected to a Naval blockade to shut them up and prevent them airing their concerns to the world?
What do you think of the continued exploitation of the seas from Krill (to feed the beef industry) to fish in the name of profit?

I am not asking for an alternative system. I am asking for accountability and fairness in the current system. I am asking for a better global ethic - particularly when it comes to the destruction of natural habitat and the use (abuse) of finite resources. I am asking that drug companies don't over charge and thereby discriminating against those who really need it etc etc..
You cannot lamely bang on saying that this ^ is better than the alternative. That is an excuse. That can be used as an excuse to allow anything to happen because "...it's better than the alternative". Nor, can you casually dismiss the huge problems Global Capitalism throws up unless you are blind.

Stevo_666

What did I say above about you trying to carpet bomb a thread with dozens of questions.? You didn't pay attention did you. Use Google instead of asking too many bloody questions.

pinno

Google what exactly? I am asking you for an opinion.

Too many bloody questions' that you will do your best to avoid answering because somewhere along the line you'll have to concede that there is a lot wrong with the current system of Global Capitalism. Even answering 1 question will lift the lid on the can of worms and then we can get on with a real philosophical discussion about ethics, humanity, environmentalism and morality. I doubt you'll even be able to tread water with a discussion along those lines vis-a-vis Global Capitalism.
I expect I have also asked questions that you have never considered or were unaware of. Perhaps, you would rather not as it would question some inner conceptions that you took as a 'given'.
The fact that you used the word 'bloody' is revealing. Too uncomfortable with it or have you got a one liner 'throw the question back' under you're sleeve and thereby avoid addressing some of the issues raised?
Or do you take the third option: Tell me I am a loony tree hugging leftie, which will allow you to wriggle out out of it completely, compromised only by the awkward fact that I had anticipated such a cheap move.

pblakeney

I think I will search out the course that M.P.s attend for question avoidance.
"That is a serious question which needs to be addressed, but I think that the important issue is.........."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgNb-p4_GQw

finchy

Oh, this is interesting. The latest 2 opinion polls show that Labour have closed the gap on the Tories. If it had been one opinion poll I would have dismissed it as an outlier, but with the Tories ripping themselves to pieces over the EU, pessimistic economic news and Osborne's budget being torn to shreds even in the right wing press, maybe the country's about to tack left.

mamba80

Hunts inability to negotiate with Jnr Doc's
Osbournes failure with WTC and now he has plunged the Tories into turmoil over cuts to disability payments..... add in the economic uncertianty caused by EU vote (and the damage it will do to the tory party) and i think the electorate are going to see that the tories are a bunch of dangerous idiots

so yep vote labour, might be the only way to save our country

pinno

Cabinet row erupts over disability cuts - in the Torygraph. Front page.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

The worlds wealth is distributed fairly
1% have just over 50% of it the other 99% have just under half of it.

See, capitalism is fair. The wealthy have half and the poor have half.

I see you've fallen for the leftie propaganda as well Frank. Have a look at tbe facts - global capitalism is reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-capitalism-and-poverty/
Makes uncomfortable reading for lefties. Pinno stuck his fingers in his ears when I posted a very similar link for him, but that's the way is is.

And dont try to kid yourself that socialsim would do better. The only way it would reduce inequality is by making us poorer.

Typical rightwing statement.

Who is us?

It's the uncomfortable truth, Frank. Unless you can tell me what in that link is factually incorrect. Pinno couldn't.

Us = most of us. Name a few countries that has grown up being socialist from the get go and produced a prosperous and equal society - as opposed to one where free trade builds the wealth and socialist administrations then take over and start dishing it out. Nordics don't count as they are just free traders but with higher income tax and VAT than average.

Stats can be used to prove whatever you wish them to. The society we live in means the most wealthy are gaining more wealth, and the least wealthy are getting poorer.
I wish we could live in a society where a man in a Rolls Royce didn't feel it necessary to kick a man in a wheelchair.
Shove your stats up your ar*e that is the reality of it in tory run GB 2016.
Don't ask me for a reply, address your comment to that triumvirate of evil DC,GO & IDS

rick_chasey

So IDS has resigned over the budget (and possibly some Brexit pressures too...).

Throughout these years, because of the perilous public finances we inherited from the last Labour administration, difficult cuts have been necessary. I have found some of these cuts easier to justify than others but aware of the economic situation and determined to be a team player I have accepted their necessity.

You are aware that I believe the cuts would have been even fairer to younger families and people of working age if we had been willing to reduce some of the benefits given to better-off pensioners but I have attempted to work within the constraints that you and the chancellor set.

I have for some time and rather reluctantly come to believe that the latest changes to benefits to the disabled, and the context in which they’ve been made are, a compromise too far. While they are defensible in narrow terms, given the continuing deficit, they are not defensible in the way they were placed within a budget that benefits higher earning taxpayers. They should have instead been part of a wider process to engage others in finding the best way to better focus resources on those most in need.

I am unable to watch passively while certain policies are enacted in order to meet the fiscal self imposed restraints that I believe are more and more perceived as distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest. Too often my team and I have been pressured in the immediate run up to a budget or fiscal event to deliver yet more reductions to the working age benefit bill.”

Makes sense. It's what plenty of people have been saying. He's far too right wing for me, but he's always been fairly honest to himself. Still shouldn't have happened, but anyway.

Also makes the rather infertile pillaring of IDS look a little foolish. As ever, politics is greyer and murkier than people think.

mamba80

If a right winger like IDS can't stomach the government policy of taking money from the poorest and giving it to the well off, then it shows how far the Tory party has fallen.

pinno

I'm not so cynical. I don't think it's the government taking from the poor and giving to the rich, I think it's worse because they underestimated the backlash of making cuts to a small part of the benefit system in the continued vein of austerity and they thought they would get away with it. I also think they calculated that it would not affect their core vote. Most notably, it's the internal conflicts that are undermining them.

rick_chasey

The very cynical take is that it's a way to bring a lot of disaffected voters to listen to his Brexit sirens over the coming weeks....

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

If a right winger like IDS can't stomach the government policy of taking money from the poorest and giving it to the well off, then it shows how far the Tory party has fallen.

It'll be like the tax credit issue. Most likely there will be a softening of the stance and it will all be forgotten.

This is an emotive issue and Corbyn has recognised that he can score political points by exploiting the knee jerk reaction of many people who don't look at the facts and assume that any cut is a bad cut. Apparently the decisions were taken based on an independent review and aimed at making sure that the budget was spent on those that really need the money. But lefties are just appealing on a more simplistic level.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

The very cynical take is that it's a way to bring a lot of disaffected voters to listen to his Brexit sirens over the coming weeks....

You have lost me there - what do you mean? Is it not better for DC to show his leadership skills as the man who's negotiated EU reforms and is in control? Is the resignation by IDS partly to do with his EU views, so it was a double conflict?
Does IDS think he can spend more time pushing the Brexit campaign now he is not tied down to cabinet duties? Or, does he feel that his position is untenable and is genuinely concerned about financial constraints?

rick_chasey

What I meant is yeah, being outside of the cabinet makes it easier to really lead the OUT campaign.

There is a fair bit of anger around the disability cuts. If he gets on their side by resigning a big job, then maybe they'll be more receptive to his Brexit message.

At least, that's what a nerdy friend seems to think.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Google what exactly? I am asking you for an opinion.

Too many bloody questions' that you will do your best to avoid answering because somewhere along the line you'll have to concede that there is a lot wrong with the current system of Global Capitalism. Even answering 1 question will lift the lid on the can of worms and then we can get on with a real philosophical discussion about ethics, humanity, environmentalism and morality. I doubt you'll even be able to tread water with a discussion along those lines vis-a-vis Global Capitalism.
I expect I have also asked questions that you have never considered or were unaware of. Perhaps, you would rather not as it would question some inner conceptions that you took as a 'given'.
The fact that you used the word 'bloody' is revealing. Too uncomfortable with it or have you got a one liner 'throw the question back' under you're sleeve and thereby avoid addressing some of the issues raised?
Or do you take the third option: Tell me I am a loony tree hugging leftie, which will allow you to wriggle out out of it completely, compromised only by the awkward fact that I had anticipated such a cheap move.

Simple, simple case of tl:dr. Or you deliberately asking too many questions and claiming a victory like you are now. I calling you out on that - again :roll: Its obvious and tedious.

Why don't I just find a link with 20 questions about socialism and claim a victory when you don't answer them all? Because I know that's crap debating technique.

Lets keep I focussed.
1. We know capitalism created substantial wealth. That can be seen in the Western world and is mor in dispute.
2. I have demonstrated that capitalism is reducing poverty globally. You have not refuted the evidence and sidestepped my repeated requests to do so.

So the onus is on you to give an example of a better system. And the Nordics don't count as previously mentioned - free trade nations with higher VAT and income tax rates and/or massive oil stashes...

pinno

I'll refer you back to this:

Pinno wrote:

I am not asking for an alternative system. I am asking for accountability and fairness in the current system. I am asking for a better global ethic - particularly when it comes to the destruction of natural habitat and the use (abuse) of finite resources. I am asking that drug companies don't over charge and thereby discriminating against those who really need it etc etc..
You cannot lamely bang on saying that this ^ is better than the alternative. That is an excuse. That can be used as an excuse to allow anything to happen because "...it's better than the alternative". Nor, can you casually dismiss the huge problems Global Capitalism throws up unless you are blind.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Oh, this is interesting. The latest 2 opinion polls show that Labour have closed the gap on the Tories. If it had been one opinion poll I would have dismissed it as an outlier, but with the Tories ripping themselves to pieces over the EU, pessimistic economic news and Osborne's budget being torn to shreds even in the right wing press, maybe the country's about to tack left.

Not sure where you see the budget being torn to shreds other than in leftie lala land. There is an emotive focus on the disability cuts but that's about it.

My bet with mamba is safe because Labour is still an unelectable trotskyite run protest party

pinno

...and this:

Pinno wrote:

I am asking you for an opinion.

Too many bloody questions' that you will do your best to avoid answering because somewhere along the line you'll have to concede that there is a lot wrong with the current system of Global Capitalism. Even answering 1 question will lift the lid on the can of worms and then we can get on with a real philosophical discussion about ethics, humanity, environmentalism and morality. I doubt you'll even be able to tread water with a discussion along those lines vis-a-vis Global Capitalism.
I expect I have also asked questions that you have never considered or were unaware of. Perhaps, you would rather not as it would question some inner conceptions that you took as a 'given'.
The fact that you used the word 'bloody' is revealing. Too uncomfortable with it or have you got a one liner 'throw the question back' under you're sleeve and thereby avoid addressing some of the issues raised?
Or do you take the third option: Tell me I am a loony tree hugging leftie, which will allow you to wriggle out out of it completely, compromised only by the awkward fact that I had anticipated such a cheap move.