So what happens if Labour win?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

cougie wrote:

[3

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

.........with Diane Abbott's son.

Ah, the rich vein of leftie hypocrisy

Let's not forget Chakrabati's kids in private school. Or the point that Corbyn's kids went to a selective school....

Hypocrisy is hardly exclusive to the Left; cast your mind back to all the traditional family values nonsense in which the Conservatives periodically get tangled.

So because half a dozen prominent lefties send their children to fee-paying or selective schools, it's therefore absolutely fine to gradually reduce state school funding? Seems a bit of a thin argument to me.

They should practice what they preach if they are potentially in positions of power.

The private education hypocrisy is an exclusively leftie thing. Care to explain how a Tory mp can be hypocritical by sending their kids private?

meanredspider

cougie wrote:

MRS. They're talking about a corporation tax of 26%. In 2010 it was 28%. Did everyone leave then ? It's been massively higher in years before as well.

You've seen the NHS. There's not going to be one in another term of Tories. It's going to be underfunded until it becomes unworkable and then who rides to the rescue ? Private companies. Who can then make money off of it. No wonder there's Millions of pounds of donations coming into their party. If you're in healthcare the big payoff is just round the corner.

Yeah but we don't have enough inward investment already. In about 2010 the company I worked for was busy spending millions to be registered as a Swiss business rather than a U.K. business. Turnover of £2bn and profit £0.5bn. Utter waste of real money and jobs but less tax to pay.

I've been hearing for years that there'll be no NHS because of the Tories. Like the private schools thing, I'm not a great fan of private companies in the NHS. But I also see daily how utterly crap some of the internal services are run that are still public. What the whole thing needs is more money and I believe the way to get that is through a stronger economy on the backs of private business. There are some great examples but they are mostly in spite of government policy.

Pross

cougie wrote:

You've seen the NHS. There's not going to be one in another term of Tories. It's going to be underfunded until it becomes unworkable and then who rides to the rescue ? Private companies. Who can then make money off of it. No wonder there's Millions of pounds of donations coming into their party. If you're in healthcare the big payoff is just round the corner.

This is one of those things I see over and over again. I'm just not buying it, the NHS has been run by Tory governments for much of its existence and despite it having to grow to cope with more and more people expecting it to provide more and more services together with people predicting it being privatised for as long as can remember it still hasn't happened.

Does anyone think the NHS in Wales is in better shape despite being devolved and run by a a Labour controlled Assembly (who, thanks to the Barnet formula have more public funding per head of population)?

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

They dont mean to but they will. The economics just don't work. Like in the 70's when the policies were similar.

meanredspider

Pross wrote:

Does anyone think the NHS in Wales is in better shape despite being devolved and run by a a Labour controlled Assembly (who, thanks to the Barnet formula have more public funding per head of population)?

To this very point, schools in Scotland are every bit as bad as England for funding (probably worse) and the policies are terrible (quoting Mrs MRS - teacher 30 years). SNP has tax raising ability. Equally, NHS is screwed too. SNP run.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

cougie wrote:

[3

The Tories are constantly reducing support to schools. They don't care. Their kids are at private school.

.........with Diane Abbott's son.

Ah, the rich vein of leftie hypocrisy

Let's not forget Chakrabati's kids in private school. Or the point that Corbyn's kids went to a selective school....

Labour are not proposing to abolish private education! so calm down.

We can't all go to private schools can we? there isnt the number of places even if everyone could afford it! so though it sounds good to bang on about Labour hypocrisy, its just a knee jerk criticism with no substance.

and in any case, the rich and famous no doubt have to send their kids to a private school, simply because their parents are rich and famous and we all now how nasty those kids from the local estate can be!

We need a great education system because we ll no longer have access to a pool of overseas labour, as immigration is going to be in the 10s of 1000s remember ?

instead of banging on about Labour, why dont you Q why the vast majority of kids get a less than great education and Q why so many leave unable to read of write?
hang on! you could also Q why work assessments are causing suicides and mental health issues too? even IDS resigned because he said DWP had gone too far! (apparently)

tangled_metal

meanredspider wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Average public school fees are £15,000, that is more than many peoples total Net income. Most in Public school have no problem affording these fees and would have no problem affording them if they went up by 15%.

I'm afraid that's just misinformed borlicks. I'm sure that's what you'd like to think but the reality is very different.

Forgive me if this has been discussed to death but I'm still catching up on this thread.

It is absolute rubbish to say most people paying for a private education could pay vat on top of fees. I am a prime example from a long time ago. I went to one of the country's oldest schools that dated from 1509. It wasn't that far back that I went there and I can't remember how much the fees were. I can tell you a few things, my parents scrimped and saved to send me to a school which would be able to successfully teach me. I was a highly intelligent (must be early onset senility that intelligence ain't what it used to be) and even lazier boy. My local high school was on the equivalent of special measures. I wouldn't have left there with any qualifications.

My parents only just managed to afford the fees. I also had to leave home at 7am and get home after 6pm to go there. It was a real effort but not being church of England we could not get into the only alternative. A former grammar school turned C of E state school. Being outside of the catchment we needed a letter from the vicar saying the family goes to church. So that wasn't an option.

BTW the school hit the daily mail in 2012 when they reported that one of the oldest schools was applying to become a state funded free school because of falling admissions to the £10,000 annual fees private school. It succeeded and is now funded by the state and still uses selective admissions. Grammar school again? It was actually effectively a grammar school from about 1569 when it got a royal charter that educated all from the area based on ability. That was until the Labour controlled council and MPs (Barbara Castle then Jack Straw BTW) closed grammar schools.

TL:DR my parents struggled to avoid my private school fees which were well below the average level of fees. VAT on top would have seen me go to a state school effectively on special measures resulting in a bright kid not getting any qualifications. I've now got two degrees.

Said school became free school funded by state because not enough local parents could afford £10,000 fees. It still selects so is now effectively a grammar school that local Labour controlled council and MPs got rid of decades before I went there.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

They dont mean to but they will. The economics just don't work. Like in the 70's when the policies were similar.

Serious question, what is working under Austerity now?

i ve just done a decent ride with guys who are normally quite right wing, 2 ex marines and micro businessman, all critical of May/Tory, crime, Police numbers, public sector pay rises and esp conventional defence cuts (which Corbyn has said he ll reverse) all 3 said Corbyn talking a lot of sense.....

49 "leaders club" individuals have given millions to the Tories for access to senior ministers inc PM who do you think the tories govern for? and if its for everyone and we are all equal, then why do they give their money away for no influence?
these people have no accountability....unlike union subs which are given freely by union members, who can vote in their bosses.

Stevo_666

cougie wrote:

MRS. They're talking about a corporation tax of 26%. In 2010 it was 28%. Did everyone leave then ? It's been massively higher in years before as well.

You've seen the NHS. There's not going to be one in another term of Tories. It's going to be underfunded until it becomes unworkable and then who rides to the rescue ? Private companies. Who can then make money off of it. No wonder there's Millions of pounds of donations coming into their party. If you're in healthcare the big payoff is just round the corner.

I've said this recently on another thread. We collect more corporation rax now (rate in the last tax year = 20%) than when Labour left power on 2010 and the rate was 28%. Go figure.

Add to that the other taxes that are henerated from the additional investment and activity encouraged by a low corporate tax rate, the current government tax strategy is working pretty well.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

They dont mean to but they will. The economics just don't work. Like in the 70's when the policies were similar.

Serious question, what is working under Austerity now?

i ve just done a decent ride with guys who are normally quite right wing, 2 ex marines and micro businessman, all critical of May/Tory, crime, Police numbers, public sector pay rises and esp conventional defence cuts (which Corbyn has said he ll reverse) all 3 said Corbyn talking a lot of sense.....

49 "leaders club" individuals have given millions to the Tories for access to senior ministers inc PM who do you think the tories govern for? and if its for everyone and we are all equal, then why do they give their money away for no influence?
these people have no accountability....unlike union subs which are given freely by union members, who can vote in their bosses.

Over what time period do you think we should balance the books and how?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

They dont mean to but they will. The economics just don't work. Like in the 70's when the policies were similar.

Serious question, what is working under Austerity now?

i ve just done a decent ride with guys who are normally quite right wing, 2 ex marines and micro businessman, all critical of May/Tory, crime, Police numbers, public sector pay rises and esp conventional defence cuts (which Corbyn has said he ll reverse) all 3 said Corbyn talking a lot of sense.....

49 "leaders club" individuals have given millions to the Tories for access to senior ministers inc PM who do you think the tories govern for? and if its for everyone and we are all equal, then why do they give their money away for no influence?
these people have no accountability....unlike union subs which are given freely by union members, who can vote in their bosses.

Austerity to you, trying to live within our financial means to me. As SC has said, how do you propose to balance revenue and spending?

Labour would add huge amounts to national debt, increasing borrowing rates and interest costs: it will also drive down/drive away economic activity with high rates of tax (and massively increase tax avoidance - the natural reaction to major tax rises), so reducing rhe revenues that Labour seek to increase. They clearly haven't learnt from the 70's when this approach was tried and failed.

ben@31

Have the tories borrowed more? And how is our national debt after all those austerity cuts, still as big ?

With a banking system that makes a profit for itself out of made up "fiat" currency and debt repayments. I don't think it is possible to get out of our national debt.
We simply don't produce enough products with real value (like oil or gold) to sell to meet the repayments. We are effectively borrowing to pay the interest.

What austerity has done is rob money from vital public services that effect people's lives. Yet we still find enough money to give to RBS bankers for their utter incompetence or several years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that we have we paid for at £x million per day, every day?

* fiat currency and central banks... now that is a magic money tree.

mamba80

ben@31 wrote:

Have the tories borrowed more? And how is our national debt after all those austerity cuts, still as big ?

With a banking system that makes a profit for itself out of made up "fiat" currency and debt repayments. I don't think it is possible to get out of our national debt.
We simply don't produce enough products with real value (like oil or gold) to sell to meet the repayments. We are effectively borrowing to pay the interest.

What austerity has done is rob money from vital public services that effect people's lives. Yet we still find enough money to give to RBS bankers for their utter incompetence or several years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that we have we paid for at £x million per day, every day?

* fiat currency and central banks... now that is a magic money tree.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'd agree except neither my brother nor my wife will be better off when the economy is screwed.

I dont think its in Labour manifesto anywhere to screw over the economy. Maybe thats just written in the Daily Heil or the Torygraph. So it must be true?

Is it even possible for all the teachers, nurses, police, libraries, public services to be screwed over any more than they have in the past 7 years of tory austerity cuts. And for what? To rob the bottom 99% to give to the top 1% offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.
Ask all those effected out there, what the tory economy has done for them ?

They dont mean to but they will. The economics just don't work. Like in the 70's when the policies were similar.

Serious question, what is working under Austerity now?

i ve just done a decent ride with guys who are normally quite right wing, 2 ex marines and micro businessman, all critical of May/Tory, crime, Police numbers, public sector pay rises and esp conventional defence cuts (which Corbyn has said he ll reverse) all 3 said Corbyn talking a lot of sense.....

49 "leaders club" individuals have given millions to the Tories for access to senior ministers inc PM who do you think the tories govern for? and if its for everyone and we are all equal, then why do they give their money away for no influence?
these people have no accountability....unlike union subs which are given freely by union members, who can vote in their bosses.

Austerity to you, trying to live within our financial means to me. As SC has said, how do you propose to balance revenue and spending?

Labour would add huge amounts to national debt, increasing borrowing rates and interest costs: it will also drive down/drive away economic activity with high rates of tax (and massively increase tax avoidance - the natural reaction to major tax rises), so reducing rhe revenues that Labour seek to increase. They clearly haven't learnt from the 70's when this approach was tried and failed.

Talking of tax, Hammond clearly wants to increase some, despite what Fallon has said - he's tried once already and been shut down once TM panicked at the headlines. The manifesto has dropped the "no tax increases" pledge, but then it does seem to be subject to revisions when necessary.
So Labour: more tax for the top 5%; LibDems: a penny on income tax; Conservatives: trying to pretend there won't be tax rises.

slowmart

The left wing taxation and public service model isn't a sustainable solution. If it was it would have been worked by now.


If Corbyn gets in it will mean Stevo has crashed the UK economy with his blackadder style plan to sink the Labour Party. Let's hope North Korea's missiles are as accurate as stevo''s aim as old Jezza hasn't the gumption to protect the UK.

motdoc

I agree. I think taxing high and spending high definitely doesn't work. Like in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. People are really miserable there!

That was sarcasm. I'm explaining this because if you think austerity is working well, you need obvious things pointed out. Like, austerity doesn't work well. For example Greece. Growing out of debt much?

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

The left wing taxation and public service model isn't a sustainable solution. If it was it would have been worked by now.


If Corbyn gets in it will mean Stevo has crashed the UK economy with his blackadder style plan to sink the Labour Party. Let's hope North Korea's missiles are as accurate as stevo''s aim as old Jezza hasn't the gumption to protect the UK.

corbyn wants to increase Police numbers and to increase numbers of frigates, planes and maritime patrol, the Tories are not doing any of this, in fact are closing Catterick and just shut down RM 42 commando..... we need conventional forces far more than nuclear.
Tories have crashed the eco by their ridiculous brexit plan and if you dont believe this, then why is getting a great brexit deal sooo vital? if its so risky why are we doing it?

Sec forces/Police have warned that cuts in community Policing will stem the flow of intel for the type of attacks we ve had recently, so look again at your assertions Corbyn would nt defend this country, the reverse is true, people like Corbyn have bought us peace in NI or would you prefer bombing in london and dozens of british soldiers killed in ulster every year? not to mention the cost.

Do you really think NK will fire nuclear weapons at us? do you want to end history? by your logic if Harold or Churchill had trident (and obv the Normans and the Germans too) then the world would have ended, for what? we were over run by the french, the world didnt end, britain survived and became a world power some 700 years later..... our generation is not the be all and end of humanity.

May should be questioned on her willingness to launch a first strike...... (Corbyn has said he would respond if weapons were coming at us)
People who are willing to strike first are stupid, its not a game, it would be the end of the world, even a limited strike would mean huge climate change, its not like sinking a ship....May hasnt children, so perhaps doesnt care about potential future generations or is it just said to people who dont or cant think?

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

So Labour: more tax for the top 5%; LibDems: a penny on income tax; Conservatives: trying to pretend there won't be tax rises.

A succinct summary.

orraloon

Weasel words from the Maybot and her acolytes. No rise in income tax, absolutely or otherwise; watch out here come the NI rises.

Oh and they love the old indirect tax hikes; example IPT in June 2015 = 6%, IPT in June 2017 = 12%.

Still parrot out the strong and stable party of low taxation line and all is well.

Frank the tank

In answer to the OP,
I'll have a party, however, I'm not sending invites out just yet as I feel it would be a bit premature.

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

The left wing taxation and public service model isn't a sustainable solution. If it was it would have been worked by now.


If Corbyn gets in it will mean Stevo has crashed the UK economy with his blackadder style plan to sink the Labour Party. Let's hope North Korea's missiles are as accurate as stevo''s aim as old Jezza hasn't the gumption to protect the UK.

corbyn wants to increase Police numbers and to increase numbers of frigates, planes and maritime patrol, the Tories are not doing any of this, in fact are closing Catterick and just shut down RM 42 commando..... we need conventional forces far more than nuclear.
Tories have crashed the eco by their ridiculous brexit plan and if you dont believe this, then why is getting a great brexit deal sooo vital? if its so risky why are we doing it?

Sec forces/Police have warned that cuts in community Policing will stem the flow of intel for the type of attacks we ve had recently, so look again at your assertions Corbyn would nt defend this country, the reverse is true, people like Corbyn have bought us peace in NI or would you prefer bombing in london and dozens of british soldiers killed in ulster every year? not to mention the cost.

Do you really think NK will fire nuclear weapons at us? do you want to end history? by your logic if Harold or Churchill had trident (and obv the Normans and the Germans too) then the world would have ended, for what? we were over run by the french, the world didnt end, britain survived and became a world power some 700 years later..... our generation is not the be all and end of humanity.

May should be questioned on her willingness to launch a first strike...... (Corbyn has said he would respond if weapons were coming at us)
People who are willing to strike first are stupid, its not a game, it would be the end of the world, even a limited strike would mean huge climate change, its not like sinking a ship....May hasnt children, so perhaps doesnt care about potential future generations or is it just said to people who dont or cant think?

The Tories are the best option from a shit option list which is a insight on the state of politics in the UK. Corbyn went missing on the run up to the referendum vote which showcases his appetite for dealing with difficult situations and hardly the behaviour of a "leader". Decisions are easy when you don't have to make them. When you do you either step up or get out of the way. Corbyn has done neither. He's a protester and a decent human being who follows his beliefs and values but he's not a leader. And above everything else, the country needs a leader who can lead.

Why do we need an conventional forces if we don't need nukes? The argument can be applied equally there? Who the hell is going to invade the UK? Which then leads to the use offensively? Who, where and when? Corbyn has been against every troop deployment or use of arms since being a member of Parliament. So the question if your arguing for not renewing Trident is where do you stop? Unless your arguing for isolationism and withdrawing from the world stage?

I find the statement that corny bought peace in N Ireland laughable, naive and wrong on every level. It was the intelligence services penetrating the IRA which forced the IRA to the table not peaceniks.

eric_draven

Slowmart wrote:

Corbyn went missing on the run up to the referendum vote which showcases his appetite for dealing with difficult situations and hardly the behaviour of a "leader".

Corbyn did more campaigning than just about any other MP on the referendum,if you cared to of looked,it's just that he did not get shown in the mainstream news and press,as all they bothered about was the Bojo and Cameron show,and neither of the later told the odd white lie

Jez mon

Surely if we are looking for someone that did Jack **** over the referendum campaign, Theresa May fits the bill entirely.

slowmart

eric draven wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Corbyn went missing on the run up to the referendum vote which showcases his appetite for dealing with difficult situations and hardly the behaviour of a "leader".

Corbyn did more campaigning than just about any other MP on the referendum,if you cared to of looked,it's just that he did not get shown in the mainstream news and press,as all they bothered about was the Bojo and Cameron show,and neither of the later told the odd white lie

Evidence?

The Guardian, hardly known as a Tory rag differs in their view too.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-betrayal

Consider that labour voters were more in favour in leaving may have played a part. Or it was just down to poor leadership. Then again that seems to inflict most political parties.

mamba80

Slowmart wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

The left wing taxation and public service model isn't a sustainable solution. If it was it would have been worked by now.


If Corbyn gets in it will mean Stevo has crashed the UK economy with his blackadder style plan to sink the Labour Party. Let's hope North Korea's missiles are as accurate as stevo''s aim as old Jezza hasn't the gumption to protect the UK.

corbyn wants to increase Police numbers and to increase numbers of frigates, planes and maritime patrol, the Tories are not doing any of this, in fact are closing Catterick and just shut down RM 42 commando..... we need conventional forces far more than nuclear.
Tories have crashed the eco by their ridiculous brexit plan and if you dont believe this, then why is getting a great brexit deal sooo vital? if its so risky why are we doing it?

Sec forces/Police have warned that cuts in community Policing will stem the flow of intel for the type of attacks we ve had recently, so look again at your assertions Corbyn would nt defend this country, the reverse is true, people like Corbyn have bought us peace in NI or would you prefer bombing in london and dozens of british soldiers killed in ulster every year? not to mention the cost.

Do you really think NK will fire nuclear weapons at us? do you want to end history? by your logic if Harold or Churchill had trident (and obv the Normans and the Germans too) then the world would have ended, for what? we were over run by the french, the world didnt end, britain survived and became a world power some 700 years later..... our generation is not the be all and end of humanity.

May should be questioned on her willingness to launch a first strike...... (Corbyn has said he would respond if weapons were coming at us)
People who are willing to strike first are stupid, its not a game, it would be the end of the world, even a limited strike would mean huge climate change, its not like sinking a ship....May hasnt children, so perhaps doesnt care about potential future generations or is it just said to people who dont or cant think?

I find the statement that corny bought peace in N Ireland laughable, naive and wrong on every level. It was the intelligence services penetrating the IRA which forced the IRA to the table not peaceniks.

Maggie was seeking a peaceful solution to the IRA issue long before Corbyn got involved, in any case, i didnt say he bought peace to NI but to deny the so called peaceniks had no involvment for setting a climate where talks can take place, is to deny history - gov contacts existed with IRA as far back as the 70's
As for the IRA being broken as u imply, then why did they get all their men released if we were in such a strong position? they managed to blow up Omagh shortly before formal talks began so hardly a spent force...and Paisley then become firm friends with McGuiness, no called the right rev a terrorist sympathiser

i think questions over Corbyns involvment with IRA etc is justified but it should be balanced with questioning uk gov support for Saddam and Ghaddafi and arm sales to Saudi, then used to bomb civilians, not too mention SA involvement in terrorism.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

So Labour: more tax for the top 5%; LibDems: a penny on income tax; Conservatives: trying to pretend there won't be tax rises.

It would take a bit more convincing to get me to vote for a party that has explicitly said it wants to materially increase what I pay because have the cheek to make an effort and do OK. (Lib Dems proposal is fairly honest but not a lot). The Tories' instinct is to let people keep as much as possible of their hard work and success - I subscribe to that.

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

The left wing taxation and public service model isn't a sustainable solution. If it was it would have been worked by now.

Agree. We can see it doesn't work and never has done. But lefties just don't learn as I've said many times before. 'It'll be different this time' - yeah, right.

Slowmart wrote:

If Corbyn gets in it will mean Stevo has crashed the UK economy with his blackadder style plan to sink the Labour Party. Let's hope North Korea's missiles are as accurate as stevo''s aim as old Jezza hasn't the gumption to protect the UK.

It could have been a crafty double bluff to raise my market value. I like to look on the bright side: do you think there will be more or less demand for my skill set if Labour get in?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Have the tories borrowed more? And how is our national debt after all those austerity cuts, still as big ?

With a banking system that makes a profit for itself out of made up "fiat" currency and debt repayments. I don't think it is possible to get out of our national debt.
We simply don't produce enough products with real value (like oil or gold) to sell to meet the repayments. We are effectively borrowing to pay the interest.

What austerity has done is rob money from vital public services that effect people's lives. Yet we still find enough money to give to RBS bankers for their utter incompetence or several years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that we have we paid for at £x million per day, every day?

* fiat currency and central banks... now that is a magic money tree.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/

What an unbiased source :roll:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/

Quote from the link:
"In 2015 Richard Murphy became known as the man behind Corbynomics. "

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

Have the tories borrowed more? And how is our national debt after all those austerity cuts, still as big ?

With a banking system that makes a profit for itself out of made up "fiat" currency and debt repayments. I don't think it is possible to get out of our national debt.
We simply don't produce enough products with real value (like oil or gold) to sell to meet the repayments. We are effectively borrowing to pay the interest.

What austerity has done is rob money from vital public services that effect people's lives. Yet we still find enough money to give to RBS bankers for their utter incompetence or several years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that we have we paid for at £x million per day, every day?

* fiat currency and central banks... now that is a magic money tree.

Have a look at the pattern of UK borrowing requirements by year:



After peaking in the last year Labour were in power, they have steadily fallen - so it is working, but it takes time to repair the damage of a Labour govt. If Labour had stayed in power in 2010, they would have continued to go up. And if this socialist shower get in and do what their manifesto says they will rocket quickly and materially.

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Have the tories borrowed more? And how is our national debt after all those austerity cuts, still as big ?

With a banking system that makes a profit for itself out of made up "fiat" currency and debt repayments. I don't think it is possible to get out of our national debt.
We simply don't produce enough products with real value (like oil or gold) to sell to meet the repayments. We are effectively borrowing to pay the interest.

What austerity has done is rob money from vital public services that effect people's lives. Yet we still find enough money to give to RBS bankers for their utter incompetence or several years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that we have we paid for at £x million per day, every day?

* fiat currency and central banks... now that is a magic money tree.

Have a look at the pattern of UK borrowing requirements by year:



After peaking in the last year Labour were in power, they have steadily fallen - so it is working, but it takes time to repair the damage of a Labour govt. If Labour had stayed in power in 2010, they would have continued to go up. And if this socialist shower get in and do what their manifesto says they will rocket quickly and materially.

More up to date figured from the ONS

http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N05745.pdf

The problem is not people on PAYE paying tax and supporting the country the problem is corporate transfer pricing to avoid tax and the wealthy outside of PAYE using tax havens and various schemes such as tax havens to avoid paying tax.

For example

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tax-reform

This is why we all have to pay more tax than is necessary and don't have a more balanced lower tax economy. It removes the rewards and incentives for people making something of themselves. The current governments tax cuts and handouts to the wealthy reinforce this problem. We need more competition, opportunity and reward not less.

The only way round this is a land / mansion tax as you can't move land out of the country or pretend it is not there.