So what happens if Labour win?

Frank the tank

ben@31 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

When the national deficit was 4x what it is today a labour government found the resources to set up a NHS after the second world war. We can afford a well funded NHS and benefits system. DON'T LET TORY PROPAGANDA tell you any different.

Between 0:37 and 0:52, he says a brilliant quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LnY-jy_cE0

Here here
If you claim to be a civilised human being how can you argue with those sentiments?

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

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.

Nope.
- There is not a lot of tax avoidance via transfer pricing in the scheme of thing and there is significant anti-avoidance regs in this area anyway. The total amount of corporate tax that HMRC estimate is avoided for any reason (not just transfer pricing) is £3.7bn pa out of a total tax gap of 36bn pa. Where do you get your figures from? As someone who deals transfer pricing as part of my job, I can tell you that I am trying to maximise taxable revenues in the UK at the expense of higher tax countries in my Group - because the UK rates are competitively low. The opposite of what you claim.

- The total amount avoided or evaded by individuals for (never mind the wealthy ones or tax haven users you seem to think are to blame) is £3.4bn pa. So the 'wealthy tax haven user' subset will be substantially smaller, especially as there is significant anti-avoidance legislation in this area. Again, relatively small in terms of solving the gap in government income that you want to fill.

Here is my data source, courtesy of HMRC:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561312/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2016.pdf

Do you have some evidence to the contrary on either of those points?

Kajjal wrote:

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.

Why on earth would anyone in their right minds want a tax system as you propose that 'removes the incentive for people making something of themselves'? A sure fire way to destroy wealth creation and therefore tax revenues. Simply a bad idea.

As for your claimed tax cuts and handouts to the wealthy, seems to me like leftiebollox when you look at the evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

Kajjal wrote:

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.

Rubbish. Mansion tax when originally proposed was only projected to raise £1.2 billion - not a lot in the scheme of things:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2600528/95-mansion-tax-income-come-London-South-East.html
And quite possibly cost the country money:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/11086216/Mansion-tax-could-cost-the-country-1bn.html

Unless of course you are just proposing jacking up council tax or equivalent - which would require stinging a huge proportion of the population, many of whom will not be 'rich'.

Now, what were you saying about running away?

Well thats £9.3bn you found with very little effort, even avoiding a land tax, ignoring how large corporates avoid tax and making up your own figures on wealthy tax avoiders. Then you quoted the unbiased source of the telegraph repeatedly .

I will give you a gold star for trying

Good attempt to deflect from the fact that you were posting unsubstantiated claims and got caught out by the facts An ignorance of tax combined with a chip on one's shoulder about the wealthy and big corporates is never a good combination.

Also have a look at just what the top 100 groups contribute to the country - pretty substantial.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

Now where is your evidence to support what you claimed above?

The amounts we are talking about here go nowhere near what would be needed to fulfil Labour's manifesto promises. So over to you to come upwith something that does achieve that, unlike your 'ideas'. I'll give you some time to think of some, you may need it

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

As for your claimed tax cuts and handouts to the wealthy, seems to me like leftiebollox when you look at the evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

Yep at last we agree, paying people less and less year on year means that the tax burden shifts to higher earners, big problem with our low wage low skilled economy, not too mention claims for in work benefits increasing, we will never pay of any debt unless we change this.

Do you now see what Corbyn is trying to do with increased investment in education and adult skills? even if you disagree with his methods, his aims are laudable....what are the Tories proposing in this regard, in 7 years little has changed.

Or maybe that the tax free threshold has materially increased. Where is your evidence that people are being paid 'less and less'. Not anecdotal please...

Your point about training also buys Labours line that the state knows who and what to train better than business does. How do does the state know better?

Frank the tank

Never mind asking forumites about their claims Steveo666, go ask mother Theresa about her manifesto as that has not been costed at all, Labours has apparently.
Given the government have the books surely they should be able to come up with some figures, even if they would be made up.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

lLabours has apparently.

What have you been smoking Frank?

graeme_s-2

Slowmart wrote:

Oh and a top trending story on BBC news is how Jezza thinks having police shoot to kill is counterproductive


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politic ... ill-policy

Maybe we could convince Jezza and Diane Abbot to run towards the danger and try and talk the terrorists around, like he did with the IRA?

That was from 2015. Corbyn gaver a speech this evening and said:
"I will take whatever action is necessary and effective to protect the security of our people and our country. That includes full authority for the police to use whatever force is necessary to protect and save life as they did last night, as they did in Westminster in March."

eric_draven

Slowmart wrote:

Oh and a top trending story on BBC news is how Jezza thinks having police shoot to kill is counterproductive


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politic ... ill-policy

Maybe we could convince Jezza and Diane Abbot to run towards the danger and try and talk the terrorists around, like he did with the IRA?

would that be the one that Kuenssberg got her fingers wrapped editing for the interview to misrepresent Corbyn,and yet the BBC still show the original on their website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38666914

kajjal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

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.

Nope.
- There is not a lot of tax avoidance via transfer pricing in the scheme of thing and there is significant anti-avoidance regs in this area anyway. The total amount of corporate tax that HMRC estimate is avoided for any reason (not just transfer pricing) is £3.7bn pa out of a total tax gap of 36bn pa. Where do you get your figures from? As someone who deals transfer pricing as part of my job, I can tell you that I am trying to maximise taxable revenues in the UK at the expense of higher tax countries in my Group - because the UK rates are competitively low. The opposite of what you claim.

- The total amount avoided or evaded by individuals for (never mind the wealthy ones or tax haven users you seem to think are to blame) is £3.4bn pa. So the 'wealthy tax haven user' subset will be substantially smaller, especially as there is significant anti-avoidance legislation in this area. Again, relatively small in terms of solving the gap in government income that you want to fill.

Here is my data source, courtesy of HMRC:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561312/HMRC-measuring-tax-gaps-2016.pdf

Do you have some evidence to the contrary on either of those points?

Kajjal wrote:

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.

Why on earth would anyone in their right minds want a tax system as you propose that 'removes the incentive for people making something of themselves'? A sure fire way to destroy wealth creation and therefore tax revenues. Simply a bad idea.

As for your claimed tax cuts and handouts to the wealthy, seems to me like leftiebollox when you look at the evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

Kajjal wrote:

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.

Rubbish. Mansion tax when originally proposed was only projected to raise £1.2 billion - not a lot in the scheme of things:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2600528/95-mansion-tax-income-come-London-South-East.html
And quite possibly cost the country money:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/11086216/Mansion-tax-could-cost-the-country-1bn.html

Unless of course you are just proposing jacking up council tax or equivalent - which would require stinging a huge proportion of the population, many of whom will not be 'rich'.

Now, what were you saying about running away?

Well thats £9.3bn you found with very little effort, even avoiding a land tax, ignoring how large corporates avoid tax and making up your own figures on wealthy tax avoiders. Then you quoted the unbiased source of the telegraph repeatedly .

I will give you a gold star for trying

Good attempt to deflect from the fact that you were posting unsubstantiated claims and got caught out by the facts An ignorance of tax combined with a chip on one's shoulder about the wealthy and big corporates is never a good combination.

Also have a look at just what the top 100 groups contribute to the country - pretty substantial.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

Now where is your evidence to support what you claimed above?

The amounts we are talking about here go nowhere near what would be needed to fulfil Labour's manifesto promises. So over to you to come upwith something that does achieve that, unlike your 'ideas'. I'll give you some time to think of some, you may need it

Joking aside the £36bn gap is based on known compliance. It does not include schemes that are unknown and estimates for these vary considerably. Also compliance is misleading, if a government decided to reduce tax for any group for example the wealthy they would be in compliance but collecting less tax than is available while forcing others to pick up the slack or simply cutting services for poorer and vulnerable sections of society

Labours manifesto is not my politics but is detailed, fully costed and open for debate. Mays manifesto is very poor in comparison with little real detail. Also undermined by her continual uturns and continual contradictions.

The problem is continually quoting the telegraph or out of date figures is like using a biased left wing source to claim communism will save the uk. Strangely for a low tax economy pay is stagnant and inequality continues to rise, where did all the money go to. Other examples are average public school fees are £15,000, which for two children is £30,000 or about £40,000 gross earnings, this is not a charity but a luxury good / service that needs to be taxed. This is the problem as it gives the wrong message and incentives. Building council housing makes sense as it is easy to finance an asset with a value and stable income source once the right to buy is removed. This would significantly help many.

My politics are low tax, small state but not handouts to those who don't need them at the expense of those like the elderly, long term sick (mental / physical), disabled. Being wealthy is mainly an accident of birth not a crime as is being in a less advantageous position not a persons fault normally.

tangled_metal

Stevo - is PWC an independent source? You queried someone for posting an article written by a Corbynista but how independent is a company that quite possibly earns its money from the ultra rich and big business? That PWC link, was it for general consumption as in a published report anyone can access?

Anyone know how independent the IFC is? They did a seminar on the main party's manifestos and their impact on people's tax burden. Tories and Labour weren't too far apart on the change to current tax impact across all tax groups. LibDems were the only ones to even out the curve so the impact becomes more even across socio economic groups. I'll give you a clue, both Labour and Tories have manifestos that will impact the rich and the poor of society more than those in the middle (upper middle I reckon). It was very interesting BTW. Does iPlayer have the parliament channel on it? Check it out, I think it was shown Wednesday or Thursday late on.

tangled_metal

One more point, can we stop referring to the foundation of the NHS as if that's got any relevance to today's situation?

Back then the UK and the world was growing quickly. Medicine was at a totally different place with less medical procedures, lower life expectancy, lower drug and treatment costs, etc. The setting up of a wholly new NHS today if it hadn't happened when it did would quite possibly be impossible with existing economic conditions. We grew our economy back then at high rates it was possible to maintain high debt ratios and finance grand schemes because of I think double digit growth. Plus the whole world was opening up to trade since that time.

I really despair when people try to win any current economic argument by mentioning a Labour government managed to start the NHS... I'm sure economically more literate people can explain that one better than me.

tangled_metal

Wasn't there a probe into PWC role in Tesco financial black hole?

"our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems." Quote from PwC website.

meanredspider

@Kajjal - you're not on your private school hobby horse again are you? Part of the deal of making schools a charity is that they provide free places to those that can't afford to go but have ability. Bentley don't give away a number of their cars to deserving causes. What makes you think that, as soon as those schools lose that benefit they will continue to give deserving kids a chance? You continue to bang on about something of which you have no knowledge. But it looks like a vote-winner because it looks like an opportunity to squeeze money out of the super-rich.

I asked before: where are the budget workings and assumptions related to the £1.6bn? Or have you been suckered into believing that, because they say they've been costed, the numbers actually add up?

bianchimoon

Tangled Metal wrote:

Laugh at Stevo! The most spectacular fail with his Labour thread.

now wouldn't that be funny, encouraging people to join the labour party to vote for corbyn based on a right wing mindset that Britain would never vote for someone so far left, and by these actions giving the left a national platform to gain more support and go on to govern the country with the help of the SNP and ultimately hammer the people Stevo sought to protect.
... off to shops to get an evenings supply of popcorn

bianchimoon

meanredspider wrote:

@ben@31 - let's just take one of those "apples" on your money tree: vat on private school fees. Do you have the details of how that's broken down to reach the £1.6bn?

I can tell you that there will be several outcomes to this policy:
1. A lot of parents who are just about affording to pay for kids in private schools will no longer be able to.
2. The outcome of this will be less kids in private schools leading to
3. More kids in the state sector
4. Less people employed in the private sector
5. Schools that currently give able-but-less-well-off kids bursaries will no longer feel the moral need to do so.
6. The more affluent and foreign parents will send their kids to schools in other countries.

Now, personally, despite having had a private secondary education myself, I'm not a fan of private education. My wife works in a state school and my kids were educated in a state school. I believe in it.

But, as a fund-raising measure, I think the policy is fraught with risks and ultimately will make private education the reserve of the extremely well-off whilst not raising anything like the amount of money I'm guessing is in that £1.6bn number and destroying employment for people whilst pressurising the state sector.

The same goes for many of those other "apples". When I was wee, I used to think that I could connect the dynamo on my bike to an electric motor and I'd get endless power. The idea that these policies will raise that money is the economic equivalent.

Never thought I would agree with Gove
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 97126.html

meanredspider

@bianchimoon (to save endless quoting in these threads) - there's a difference between putting VAT on fees (Corbyn's policy) and the schools paying tax. The problem is that the schools are "not-for-profit" and therefore they plough "surpluses" into infrastructure. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of private education but it is also a mistake to think that they are the preserve of the super-rich. IF they are going to continue to exist, let's not make them even MORE exclusive, but find a way of accessing some of this surplus. I think that's what Gove is getting at. Don't charge the parents but charge the schools in order to reduce the surplus. Alternatives might be a mandated number of assisted places or a fees cap etc.

Personally I'd prefer that they didn't exist at all. I believe (and I've witnessed in a microcosm in the Highlands) that if all parents used the state system, there would be more (political and local) pressure for the schools to perform and everyone would benefit. Tinkering around the edges though just leads to unintended consequences.

bianchimoon

Good reply MRS, like you i would prefer it if they didn't exist at all. Personally I don't believe private schools as they exist now could ever make a worthwhile contribution with surplus places for less wealthy or socially conscious parents. In my little microcosm our community is seeing the damage done to state education by parents choosing to go private or 'pay' to get into the nearest grammar school, the local village school lost circa 50% of it's children due to parents taking their children out and the snowball effect of 'keeping up with the jones's'. 10 years ago it was a great little school with excellent offside reports, nowadays it is a 'good' school on the brink of closing/merging due to a possible transient local fashion for private education. Private schools, but hey, you pay your money and take your choice.

meanredspider

Yes - I can imagine that. Since my son got to Cambridge (first kid in 10 years), the local state school seems to have got its confidence back and has sent a kid to Oxbridge each of the subsequent years. It helps that my wife has coached them on how to do it (she's a state teacher at a different school) - but that's the effect of having engaged, demanding and capable parents. The wife (and co-director) of the local successful property developer/builder is on the board of governors along with some other very capable people. It's a virtuous circle.

Stevo_666

Kajjal wrote:

Joking aside the £36bn gap is based on known compliance. It does not include schemes that are unknown and estimates for these vary considerably. Also compliance is misleading, if a government decided to reduce tax for any group for example the wealthy they would be in compliance but collecting less tax than is available while forcing others to pick up the slack or simply cutting services for poorer and vulnerable sections of society

Labours manifesto is not my politics but is detailed, fully costed and open for debate. Mays manifesto is very poor in comparison with little real detail. Also undermined by her continual uturns and continual contradictions.

The problem is continually quoting the telegraph or out of date figures is like using a biased left wing source to claim communism will save the uk. Strangely for a low tax economy pay is stagnant and inequality continues to rise, where did all the money go to. Other examples are average public school fees are £15,000, which for two children is £30,000 or about £40,000 gross earnings, this is not a charity but a luxury good / service that needs to be taxed. This is the problem as it gives the wrong message and incentives. Building council housing makes sense as it is easy to finance an asset with a value and stable income source once the right to buy is removed. This would significantly help many.

My politics are low tax, small state but not handouts to those who don't need them at the expense of those like the elderly, long term sick (mental / physical), disabled. Being wealthy is mainly an accident of birth not a crime as is being in a less advantageous position not a persons fault normally.

Ok, to be honest you had not come across as small state/low tax given some of your previous points.

The £36bn is HMRC's own estimate based on what they know and using some extrapolation etc to get to that, so it does cover what they see as the overall tax gap. It will never be 100% accurate as there is always the unknown factor, but it is not the case that this is the 'tip of the iceberg'.

The education taxation discussion was had a few pages back so will not repeat. The idea Labours manifesto is costed in real life is simply laughable as it assumes that tax rise directly translates to more tax revenue, totally ignoring the human and corporate reaction to these moves. They will get nowhere near it in reality. Out of interest her'e HMRC's own study on how much the 50p income tax rate raised in tax revenue (in case of TL:DR, ithe answer is sweet FA):
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf


One thing I am really struggling to understand though is your inital statement on removing the incentive for people to do well (requoted below):
Kajjal wrote:
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.

Can you clarify what you mean and explain how you think this will benefit either individuals or the country?

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo - is PWC an independent source? You queried someone for posting an article written by a Corbynista but how independent is a company that quite possibly earns its money from the ultra rich and big business? That PWC link, was it for general consumption as in a published report anyone can access?

The PwC report was in the public domain in summary form - click on the link.

The report is compiled by doing a detailed survey of the respondent 100 companies that make it up. Of course you can try to spin anything but that report is largely factual and statistical (have a read of a bit) so no clear bias. They are doing this as part of positioning themselves as 'thought leader' etc, a bit of cheap advertising, chance of client contact as they invite the likes of me along for brekkie to listen to the findings.

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Laugh at Stevo! The most spectacular fail with his Labour thread.

now wouldn't that be funny, encouraging people to join the labour party to vote for corbyn based on a right wing mindset that Britain would never vote for someone so far left, and by these actions giving the left a national platform to gain more support and go on to govern the country with the help of the SNP and ultimately hammer the people Stevo sought to protect.
... off to shops to get an evenings supply of popcorn

Now then kids, wait until Friday unless uncle Jeremy has funded a crystal ball for you.

I would argue that whatever the result, Labour would have done better with a more moderate party leadership in place so whatever happens, I've done my but for the UK That and in the unlikely event that JC did get in, I'll be in big demand. And as you understand demand and supply, you'll know that won't be bad for me

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Laugh at Stevo! The most spectacular fail with his Labour thread.

now wouldn't that be funny, encouraging people to join the labour party to vote for corbyn based on a right wing mindset that Britain would never vote for someone so far left, and by these actions giving the left a national platform to gain more support and go on to govern the country with the help of the SNP and ultimately hammer the people Stevo sought to protect.
... off to shops to get an evenings supply of popcorn

Now then kids, wait until Friday unless uncle Jeremy has funded a crystal ball for you.

I would argue that whatever the result, Labour would have done better with a more moderate party leadership in place so whatever happens, I've done my but for the UK That and in the unlikely event that JC did get in, I'll be in big demand. And as you understand demand and supply, you'll know that won't be bad for me

given unlikely political events of recent and the way the british like an underdog, Thursdays nights viewing is looking good for one or two shocks... hopefully both Boris and Diane Abbott getting sacked and start their own opposing view political chat show

tangled_metal

I would like to withdraw my laugh at Stevo comment. He has been a lot more clever than I thought at first. Whatever happens he's won.

JC doesn't win and it weakens the Labour party electorally (although May is undermining Stevo's plan by mucking up her part) and he's won bets and played his part in weakening Labour.

If he does win then Stevo gets money thrown at him by people who want to start taking more aggressive tax stance.

BTW the IFS summary had three categories for tax effect summaries of each manifesto. These ranged from no action on tax through to aggressive action on tax. Basically the Labour budget would only get close to what they claim if everyone sat and took it reality is ppl will take steps such as pension contributions or anything else. Ppl who didn't arrange their affairs in a tax efficient manner suddenly wake up and start taking action. Basically the worst case for Labour is potentially bad for tax take.

Of course it's not my field but the gist that I took from that IFS summary was we're all paying more tax (unless Stevo is doing his thing for you). Plus Labour is unlikely to get close to the extra revenues they need and we don't know what will happen after the election. Economics is a best guess and IFS effectively put such a disclaimer in the show at every opportunity.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

I would like to withdraw my laugh at Stevo comment. He has been a lot more clever than I thought at first. Whatever happens he's won.

JC doesn't win and it weakens the Labour party electorally (although May is undermining Stevo's plan by mucking up her part) and he's won bets and played his part in weakening Labour.

If he does win then Stevo gets money thrown at him by people who want to start taking more aggressive tax stance.

I love it when a plan comes together

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Laugh at Stevo! The most spectacular fail with his Labour thread.

now wouldn't that be funny, encouraging people to join the labour party to vote for corbyn based on a right wing mindset that Britain would never vote for someone so far left, and by these actions giving the left a national platform to gain more support and go on to govern the country with the help of the SNP and ultimately hammer the people Stevo sought to protect.
... off to shops to get an evenings supply of popcorn

Now then kids, wait until Friday unless uncle Jeremy has funded a crystal ball for you.

I would argue that whatever the result, Labour would have done better with a more moderate party leadership in place so whatever happens, I've done my but for the UK That and in the unlikely event that JC did get in, I'll be in big demand. And as you understand demand and supply, you'll know that won't be bad for me

given unlikely political events of recent and the way the british like an underdog, Thursdays nights viewing is looking good for one or two shocks... hopefully both Boris and Diane Abbott getting sacked and start their own opposing view political chat show

It could work - remember the Mellor and Livingstone radio chat show? Quite good actually!

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Laugh at Stevo! The most spectacular fail with his Labour thread.

now wouldn't that be funny, encouraging people to join the labour party to vote for corbyn based on a right wing mindset that Britain would never vote for someone so far left, and by these actions giving the left a national platform to gain more support and go on to govern the country with the help of the SNP and ultimately hammer the people Stevo sought to protect.
... off to shops to get an evenings supply of popcorn

Now then kids, wait until Friday unless uncle Jeremy has funded a crystal ball for you.

I would argue that whatever the result, Labour would have done better with a more moderate party leadership in place so whatever happens, I've done my but for the UK That and in the unlikely event that JC did get in, I'll be in big demand. And as you understand demand and supply, you'll know that won't be bad for me

given unlikely political events of recent and the way the british like an underdog, Thursdays nights viewing is looking good for one or two shocks... hopefully both Boris and Diane Abbott getting sacked and start their own opposing view political chat show

It could work - remember the Mellor and Livingstone radio chat show? Quite good actually!

and don't forget the car crash that was Abbott and Portillo Show

tangled_metal

I just want her to grow her afro back. I mean since it's more important taking about that than answering a difficult question on a current affairs programme I reckon she should at least grow it back so us younger viewers can see it. She puts more importance on her old afro than answering a question so let's see why!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I would like to withdraw my laugh at Stevo comment. He has been a lot more clever than I thought at first. Whatever happens he's won.

JC doesn't win and it weakens the Labour party electorally (although May is undermining Stevo's plan by mucking up her part) and he's won bets and played his part in weakening Labour.

If he does win then Stevo gets money thrown at him by people who want to start taking more aggressive tax stance.

I love it when a plan comes together

Except a narrow defeat (anything above the 2015 result) for Corbyn probably wouldn't weaken either him or the party, but may well weaken the Conservatives.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I would like to withdraw my laugh at Stevo comment. He has been a lot more clever than I thought at first. Whatever happens he's won.

JC doesn't win and it weakens the Labour party electorally (although May is undermining Stevo's plan by mucking up her part) and he's won bets and played his part in weakening Labour.

If he does win then Stevo gets money thrown at him by people who want to start taking more aggressive tax stance.

I love it when a plan comes together

Except a narrow defeat (anything above the 2015 result) for Corbyn probably wouldn't weaken either him or the party, but may well weaken the Conservatives.

That's life - you can't have everything

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I would like to withdraw my laugh at Stevo comment. He has been a lot more clever than I thought at first. Whatever happens he's won.

JC doesn't win and it weakens the Labour party electorally (although May is undermining Stevo's plan by mucking up her part) and he's won bets and played his part in weakening Labour.

If he does win then Stevo gets money thrown at him by people who want to start taking more aggressive tax stance.

I love it when a plan comes together

Except a narrow defeat (anything above the 2015 result) for Corbyn probably wouldn't weaken either him or the party, but may well weaken the Conservatives.

That's life - you can't have everything

A week's a long time in politics as they say. Who knows what the next couple of days will bring.

slowmart

Mays oversight of the reduction in serving police officers from 2010 until now will damage her.

Unfortunately/fortunately the opposition haven't the platform or ability to increase the political pressure.

I'd say May is walking dead considering the shockingly bad campaign the tories have run. Both parties seem inept and out of their depth.

Fucking woeful.