Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rather apt on Good friday, judas of Islington?

Not really, it''s the original point of this thread

the original point of this thread is that you want people to join the Labour and save the country from the evil tories..... "Join the Labour Party and save your country!" is what you wrote and its a sentiment i whole heartedly agree with

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rather apt on Good friday, judas of Islington?

Not really, it''s the original point of this thread

the original point of this thread is that you want people to join the Labour and save the country from the evil tories..... "Join the Labour Party and save your country!" is what you wrote and its a sentiment i whole heartedly agree with

Well specifically I wanted them to join Labour and vote for Corbyn. You should thank me, I've done both

pblakeney

Will there be anything left for the next government to control?
Selling off the silverware on the quiet.....
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/ne ... ation-plan

ballysmate

To be fair to the Tories, it is a difficult job. They have to provide the Government and a credible opposition.
Even though they have a wafer thin majority, any effective opposition has come from The Lords or from Tory MPs. Corbyn and his class warfare cronies are irrelevant.
Class warfare? Andrew Fisher was suspended from the Labour Party because he backed a Class Warfare candidate in the last election. He is now an adviser to JC

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

To be fair to the Tories, it is a difficult job. They have to provide the Government and a credible opposition.
Even though they have a wafer thin majority, any effective opposition has come from The Lords or from Tory MPs. Corbyn and his class warfare cronies are irrelevant.
Class warfare? Andrew Fisher was suspended from the Labour Party because he backed a Class Warfare candidate in the last election. He is now an adviser to JC

Bally, as regards effective opposition, surely you've forgotten to mention the Lib Dems?

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

To be fair to the Tories, it is a difficult job. They have to provide the Government and a credible opposition.
Even though they have a wafer thin majority, any effective opposition has come from The Lords or from Tory MPs. Corbyn and his class warfare cronies are irrelevant.
Class warfare? Andrew Fisher was suspended from the Labour Party because he backed a Class Warfare candidate in the last election. He is now an adviser to JC

Bally, as regards credible opposition, surely you've forgotten to mention the Libdems?

No, I don't think I forgot.

Stevo_666

You never know when those 8 MP's might start throwing their weight around...

mamba80

More worried about these potential cuts in uk border agency.... or the Gov doing another Junr Docs on the teaching professional.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54871.html

But you pair will never criticise this bunch of Tory idiots, whatever they do, well, Steve0 might... when Forestry Commission land is sold of and those MTB tracks are turned over or treble in cost

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

More worried about these potential cuts in uk border agency.... or the Gov doing another Junr Docs on the teaching professional.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54871.html

But you pair will never criticise this bunch of Tory idiots, whatever they do, well, Steve0 might... when Forestry Commission land is sold of and those MTB tracks are turned over or treble in cost

I guess you haven't read the policies then.

Although Corbyn will clearly magic money out of thin air to pay for all of his spending plans given that McDonnell has promised to balance the books How do you think they will manage that?

mamba80

You seem to be caught in the mindset that ALL extra spending is bad and ALL cuts are good, do you apply this logic to your house and its mtce? do you wait until the roof blows away instead of paying a little extra now to replace those broken slates?

So, examples in gov, would be flood defence and Nursing, both cut in the early years, both costing far more now to make good those cuts, can you not see thats just foolish?

its not about left or Right, an argument you also seem locked into, its about applying common sense, IF these cuts to border agency are correct, is that penny wise, pound foolish?
lorries full of imigrants regularly get stopped on our roads (having been through our border in France) does that look like a dept awash with front line staff?

of course ALL budgets needs to be carefully looked at and in many cases, monies saved ploughed back into making the dept more effective not just cutting the bottom line.

anyway, i m back to my anti Austerity Easter Egg, deserved after setting a new PB in Exeter Wheelers Sporting TT

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

You seem to be caught in the mindset that ALL extra spending is bad and ALL cuts are good, do you apply this logic to your house and its mtce? do you wait until the roof blows away instead of paying a little extra now to replace those broken slates?

So, examples in gov, would be flood defence and Nursing, both cut in the early years, both costing far more now to make good those cuts, can you not see thats just foolish?

its not about left or Right, an argument you also seem locked into, its about applying common sense, IF these cuts to border agency are correct, is that penny wise, pound foolish?
lorries full of imigrants regularly get stopped on our roads (having been through our border in France) does that look like a dept awash with front line staff?

of course ALL budgets needs to be carefully looked at and in many cases, monies saved ploughed back into making the dept more effective not just cutting the bottom line.

anyway, i m back to my anti Austerity Easter Egg, deserved after setting a new PB in Exeter Wheelers Sporting TT

Not sure where you get that idea from. It appears to be an assumption on your part.

Bottom line is, in the long term the books need to be balanced. We cannot go on spending more than we earn and borrowing ro make up the difference indefinitely. Even Labour have recognised that, with McDonnell recently announcing that Labour will balance the books. Would you disagree?

If not, then how would they do that when their plans clearly involve spending significantly more.

Unfortunately balancing the books and spending more are not particularly compatible.

So how would they do it?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Bottom line is, in the long term the books need to be balanced. We cannot go on spending more than we earn and borrowing ro make up the difference indefinitely. Even Labour have recognised that, with McDonnell recently announcing that Labour will balance the books. Would you disagree?

If not, then how would they do that when their plans clearly involve spending significantly more.

Unfortunately balancing the books and spending more are not particularly compatible.

So how would they do it?

well, if they (Tories or Labour) have to constantly pay catch up with lack of investment in public services, how will any Gov "balance the books" ? Gov will always be paying for lack of (past) investment, chicken and egg.

from the little i ve read about Labours spending plans, they say they ll spend the same money differently, so cuts in corp tax & 40% TH would nt be their immediate priority and surely a big fund of potential saving is pensions? making up the biggest part of the benefits bill, why should wealthier pensioners escape the all in it together mantra?
they also say they ll take a year longer to balance the books, something which Osbourne has already had to do,
not rocket science is it.

ballysmate

Here is where Stevo and I will probably disagree. I wouldn't means test pensions. I may consider raising the pension age but would maintain the universal right to a pension based on your contributions. To do otherwise is to invite people nearing retirement age to dispose of their money to arrive at pensionable age under the prerequisite threshold, unless you intend to set such threshold at such a level it would affect too few people to make a difference.
Would a pensioner living in their home in London who has equity in their property be penalised? Would they have to sell off their assets to make up for no pension income?
Lets look after our elderly.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Would a pensioner living in their home in London who has equity in their property be penalised? Would they have to sell off their assets to make up for no pension income?

I thought that was the general pension plan in London.
Sell up and move somewhere cheaper with a wad.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Bottom line is, in the long term the books need to be balanced. We cannot go on spending more than we earn and borrowing ro make up the difference indefinitely. Even Labour have recognised that, with McDonnell recently announcing that Labour will balance the books. Would you disagree?

If not, then how would they do that when their plans clearly involve spending significantly more.

Unfortunately balancing the books and spending more are not particularly compatible.

So how would they do it?

well, if they (Tories or Labour) have to constantly pay catch up with lack of investment in public services, how will any Gov "balance the books" ? Gov will always be paying for lack of (past) investment, chicken and egg.

from the little i ve read about Labours spending plans, they say they ll spend the same money differently, so cuts in corp tax & 40% TH would nt be their immediate priority and surely a big fund of potential saving is pensions? making up the biggest part of the benefits bill, why should wealthier pensioners escape the all in it together mantra?
they also say they ll take a year longer to balance the books, something which Osbourne has already had to do,
not rocket science is it.

That's not really any sort of evidence they have a plan to balance the books. Those changes you mention above would not be enough, and that is without considering the previous evidence of cutting headline rates often increases the tax take - I quoted a couple of real life examples recently. In the end it is selfish of us if we dont do it - it is simply kicking the debt can down the road and make it our kids problem.

That said, Labour don't have a plan to do this anyway. When asked in an interview, McDonnell totally failed to explain and went into bullshit/waffle mode. They know they can't and in reality don't really want to, but feel they have to say that to get some vague shred of economic credibility. It was very easy to spot, but I already knew that which is why I started the thread in the first place

Alain Quay

This thread has spoiled the tone of Cake Stop and should have been wound up months ago. Kill it, please.

Stevo_666

Alain Quay wrote:

This thread has spoiled the tone of Cake Stop and should have been wound up months ago. Kill it, please.

Knowing your political persuasion I can see why you would say that. It does contain a few uncomfortable home truths for lefties but if you don't like the thread, don't click on it. Dead easy.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

This thread has spoiled the tone of Cake Stop and should have been wound up months ago. Kill it, please.

Knowing your political persuasion I can see why you would say that. It does contain a few uncomfortable home truths for lefties but if you don't like the thread, don't click on it. Dead easy.

i think Alain has a point, if you and to some extent Bally, dont address retorts or questions raised to the stuff you post, it just becomes a bore-fest, with either of you waiting to post the next Mail or Murdock press release on Corbyn - which is irrelevant giving issues facing nhs, education and the recent shambolic budget and further cuts inc border force.

You ve never addressed Mambas stuff on lack of investment costing us more in the end, not to mention the suffering it causes, or cutting the available cake differently or looking at pensioner benefits.

so, all you ve done is switch anyone off to Politics, if they had any sort of interest in the first place, much like Tories/DC really, which is a shame because politics effects us all, from pot holed roads to what happens when you go to AE or your kids state education.

Alain Quay

This is supposed to be Cake Stop, not Tory Stop. Stevo 666's ridiculous 1980s pop star avatar and the endless
attempts to rub people's nose in your political views - tedious.

pblakeney

Alain Quay wrote:

This is supposed to be Cake Stop, not Tory Stop. Stevo 666's ridiculous 1980s pop star avatar and the endless
attempts to rub people's nose in your political views - tedious.

Oh dear....

ballysmate

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

This thread has spoiled the tone of Cake Stop and should have been wound up months ago. Kill it, please.

Knowing your political persuasion I can see why you would say that. It does contain a few uncomfortable home truths for lefties but if you don't like the thread, don't click on it. Dead easy.

i think Alain has a point, if you and to some extent Bally, dont address retorts or questions raised to the stuff you post, it just becomes a bore-fest, with either of you waiting to post the next Mail or Murdock press release on Corbyn - which is irrelevant giving issues facing nhs, education and the recent shambolic budget and further cuts inc border force.

You ve never addressed Mambas stuff on lack of investment costing us more in the end, not to mention the suffering it causes, or cutting the available cake differently or looking at pensioner benefits.

so, all you ve done is switch anyone off to Politics, if they had any sort of interest in the first place, much like Tories/DC really, which is a shame because politics effects us all, from pot holed roads to what happens when you go to AE or your kids state education.

Mail or Murdock eh? The lefty mantra.
We are on what, page 84 of this thread? As far as I can tell you have to go back to page 68 to find my most recent link to the Mail. There are some with deliberate links to the lefty bible, The Guardian and one to The Telegraph.
So another assertion then that doesn't bear close scrutiny then.

Lookyhere

PBlakeney wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

This is supposed to be Cake Stop, not Tory Stop. Stevo 666's ridiculous 1980s pop star avatar and the endless
attempts to rub people's nose in your political views - tedious.

Oh dear....

Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there, it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop...EVER, until you vote Tory!

Stevo_666

Alain Quay wrote:

This is supposed to be Cake Stop, not Tory Stop. Stevo 666's ridiculous 1980s pop star avatar and the endless
attempts to rub people's nose in your political views - tedious.

What pop star is that then? Not convinced your pop quiz knowledge is top notch...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bottom line is, in the long term the books need to be balanced. We cannot go on spending more than we earn and borrowing ro make up the difference indefinitely. Even Labour have recognised that, with McDonnell recently announcing that Labour will balance the books. Would you disagree?

Yeah, I would.

pblakeney

Lookyhere wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Alain Quay wrote:

This is supposed to be Cake Stop, not Tory Stop. Stevo 666's ridiculous 1980s pop star avatar and the endless
attempts to rub people's nose in your political views - tedious.

Oh dear....

Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there, it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop...EVER, until you vote Tory!

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

It does contain a few uncomfortable home truths for lefties

That's right Stevo, you've really taught us lefties a lesson on this thread.



Ah well, come on comrades, not much left for us to do except wave the white flag of surrender, then skulk off with our tails between our legs, back to our (council homes/ivory towers)* to (seethe resentfully at other people's success/drink champagne and shake our heads trying to understand how all those common people betrayed our mission to create a utopia)**.

* Delete according to the type of leftie abode in which you dwell
** Delete according to the mental deficiency that causes your leftie views

finchy

Another brilliant Tory policy.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Here is where Stevo and I will probably disagree. I wouldn't means test pensions. I may consider raising the pension age but would maintain the universal right to a pension based on your contributions. To do otherwise is to invite people nearing retirement age to dispose of their money to arrive at pensionable age under the prerequisite threshold, unless you intend to set such threshold at such a level it would affect too few people to make a difference.
Would a pensioner living in their home in London who has equity in their property be penalised? Would they have to sell off their assets to make up for no pension income?
Lets look after our elderly.

Pensions are one of the biggest costs in our annual expenditure so probably one of the most important to deal with.

I actually agree with you on not means testing - based on wealth/savings - as you say, that penalises those who save compared to those who 'p1ss it up the wall' and encourages the sort of behaviour you mention above, though probably not as much as you think as the state pension is not huge.

Better to means test based on income - which we already do as pension income is taxable so anyine earnjng more than around £11k pa as a pensioner pays some of it back in tax.

Two other key changes are already being made - raising the pension age (as people are oiving longer) and also compulsory workplace pensions to effectively make mandatory pension saving for anyone in employment and reduce reliance on the state.

Apart from that, I think they should now look at indexing the state pension in a less generous way as the measures above start to kick in.

Restrictions on pension tax deductions have already been made as previously discussed although I think we still need to incentivise pension saving for all to some extent via the tax system.

Any other ideas?

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It does contain a few uncomfortable home truths for lefties

That's right Stevo, you've really taught us lefties a lesson on this thread.



Ah well, come on comrades, not much left for us to do except wave the white flag of surrender, then skulk off with our tails between our legs, back to our (council homes/ivory towers)* to (seethe resentfully at other people's success/drink champagne and shake our heads trying to understand how all those common people betrayed our mission to create a utopia)**.

* Delete according to the type of leftie abode in which you dwell
** Delete according to the mental deficiency that causes your leftie views

I think it was more the last general election result that taught lefties a lesson - or at least should have done

rick_chasey

Ah elections come and go Stevo.