Brillos Corbyn thread

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/10/corbyn-labour-general-election-tories-win

Talk about count his chickens. Corbyn's ego defines him. He thinks he has it in the bag with all his bribery, at the taxpayers' expense - but so far he's all talk. To see that ego and all his huffing and puffing deflate would be interesting to say the least.

There's nothing like an old fool who is standing at the gates of the last chance saloon.

This hysterical 'hero worship' thing going on with some Labour voters reminds me of Christmas and the must have Christmas toy debacle - childish, desperate fads with a hidden agenda from those desperate to sell something. Works well on the young and naive.

[Kizzy]

And the hopeful desperate for an end to the pressure placed on the most vulnerable. Times they are a changin, for the better. You have to ask yourself in all seriousness taking wages, caps, austerity, housing, the NHS how could things get any worse?

The age of 'I'm alright Jack' is coming to an end, they have stretched the public conscience to capacity and now we are seeing the snap back, I'm very glad to say.
Corbyn isn't alone in his stance within the Labour movement, he is one of many social reformers who still believe in the ethos instilled when the Labour party was created.

Many were well aware of the danger to infrastructure posed by the tories due to their relentless privatisation, environmental and foreign policies. Corbyn is one man, it is ridiculous to suggest it is simply his personal opinion that draws support. What he has done is highlight areas that were conveniently hidden.

[JTM45]

bribery, at the taxpayers' expense

Like the £1 billion that May just bought the UDP's support with you mean ? Bribes don't get much bigger or more unethical than that!

It's time for the old crone and her party of out of touch farts to step aside and let King Corbyn take his rightful place upon his throne. Maybe then he can start cleaning up this mess that May has made of our Country.

[Livia]

Age is a funny thing, isn't it. There's Theresa May described as an "Old Crone" alongside a supportive message for Corbyn, who is older than she is. You can't beat a bit of intelligent political debate right?

If Corbyn gets in next time - and he has plenty of time for people to wake up before then - it'll be the same as it always is. Labour will spend all the cash, people will vote the Tories back in, they'll have to make cuts and the whole merry-go-round begins again.

[Kizzy]

Good, spend some money, invest in the future. look at this graph... post war reforms and we go into surplus, so don't tell me that austerity and scaling back public services and welfare is the route out from the deficit.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/include/ukgs_chartDp03t.png

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

[Oliver_W]

One of the most important deciding factors in elections should be border policies. With the migrant crisis in Europe having adverse effects in places like Germany, Austria, and especially Sweden, keeping tight borders should be a priority.
... Yes, May's been rubbish with immigration, but at least she claims to want to limit migration, unlike Corbyn, who's pro-open borders.

[Brillopad]

One of the most important deciding factors in elections should be border policies. With the migrant crisis in Europe having adverse effects in places like Germany, Austria, and especially Sweden, keeping tight borders should be a priority.
... Yes, May's been rubbish with immigration, but at least she claims to want to limit migration, unlike Corbyn, who's pro-open borders.

I completely agree. Without tight borders we won't have much else - and safety and security will become bigger and bigger issues.

[Withano]

I dunno, the polls were very accurate this time around, and hes got a hefty margin in them at the moment...
But chances are, that one day, eventually, surely? Torys will do something that isnt completely tragic? And voters might swing back in to their favour... cuts to the emergency forces didnt help, nor did creating a coalition with the DUP. But like they might stop being tragic soon. Maybe... Surely?

[user104658]

"The party leader’s name reverberates, but the old leftwing assumption of inevitable victory is his Achilles heel."

An assumption of inevitable victory IS an Achilles hell, always, in any circumstance but calling it a "leftwing assumption"? In 2017? After this last election? ... ... ... ..... really, though?

It was the assumption of (dramatic) victory that lead the Tories to call a GE in the first place, AND to drag their heels on the campaign trail :think:. I don't think you can call something "leftwing" when the Tories have just literally done the exact same thing within the last 6 months.

[arista]

No its Corbyn Vs whoever the New leader of conservative's
is in 2022.

From all polls Labour can win it.

[Tom4784]

Anyone of the working/middle classes that would continue to vote Tories after the ****show that has been the last election and the unethical bribing and subsequent bull**** that followed do not love themselves. It is nothing but wilful ignorance to ignore everything that has happened.

Then again people who blindly vote for one party without understanding what they are voting for just to prevent someone they dislike from becoming PM deserve what they get for their ignorance. Vote on policies that you agree with, voting for something just because it's opposed to something else is utter foolishness.

[Brillopad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/17/did-students-vote-twice-corbyn-watchdog-demands-urgent-action/

Very interesting!!!

[user104658]

"evidence that thousands of people registered to vote multiple times, as many as 70 per cent of residents in some areas"

Bull**** :facepalm:

[Denver]

I believe they would

[lewis111]

Yes because voting fraud only ever helps the side you don't like

[Tom4784]

Ah, the Tories and their supporters must be getting desperate if they are resorting to what is essentially Voter Suppression.

The majority of students didn't vote for a Tory government and they aren't going to in the future, this is just an attempt to disparage and discourage a demographic that isn't favourable to the Tories from voting in the future. It's fairly transparent.

The Tories aren't likely going to retain power in the next election, instead of trying to discourage people from voting they should perhaps think about why they did so **** in this election and learn from their mistakes.

[Wizard.]

Yes this needs to be investigated and fast!

[Brillopad]

Ah, the Tories and their supporters must be getting desperate if they are resorting to what is essentially Voter Suppression.

The majority of students didn't vote for a Tory government and they aren't going to in the future, this is just an attempt to disparage and discourage a demographic that isn't favourable to the Tories from voting in the future. It's fairly transparent.

The Tories aren't likely going to retain power in the next election, instead of trying to discourage people from voting they should perhaps think about why they did so **** in this election and learn from their mistakes.

No, they are too busy participating in illegal voting. They have such faith in Corbyn they CHEAT.

Oh those on the left were so quick to accuse the tories of this, that and the other, when all the time Labour had their own dirty little secret.

No surprises there!

[Tom4784]

No, they are too busy participating in illegal voting. They have such faith in Corbyn they CHEAT.

Oh those on the left were so quick to accuse the tories of this, that and the other, when all the time Labour had their own dirty little secret.

No surprises there!

Okay, I see you have nothing of value to add to what I said then. Just more Corbyn obsession on your part with nothing of substance or interest to back it up.

Every response you come up with is either 'Corbyn this! 'Corbyn that!' or 'I know you are but what am I?' It's so very dull. I know what you'll write before you write it.

[Brillopad]

Okay, I see you have nothing of value to add to what I said then. Just more Corbyn obsession on your part with nothing of substance or interest to back it up.

Every response you come up with is either 'Corbyn this! 'Corbyn that!' or 'I know you are but what am I?' It's so very dull. I know what you'll write before you write it.

This thread is about the Students behaviour and the steps they will go to to get those free uni fees, not Corbyn's.

:pat:

[Tom4784]

This thread is about the Students behaviour and the steps they will go to to get those free uni fees, not Corbyn's.

:pat:

So you went for the 'I know you are but what am I?' approach.....even though it was you that brought up Corbyn in the first place....follow your own advice and stick to the topic, perhaps?

Also not you've replied to me twice without uttering a single word about what I actually said so yeah.

[Jarrod]

Yes because I obviously voted here and then did the 12 hour round trip to vote again at home.


Idiots.

[Jarrod]

This thread is about the Students behaviour and the steps they will go to to get those free uni fees, not Corbyn's.

:pat:

Erm, I think you'll find my vote was actually decided by the things Corbyn wanted to bring to the table that would benefit the entire UK. Tuition fees don't bother me! It was my choice to go to university.

[Tom4784]

Yes because I obviously voted here and then did the 12 hour round trip to vote again at home.


Idiots.

They're trying to pull a Trump, last I heard his administration was trying to push through 'anti-voting fraud' laws that essentially was voter suppression by a different name.

It's fairly blatant that this is just an attempt to dissuade students from voting in future since they proved to be an influential part of this election that weren't in the Tories' favour.

[Brillopad]

They're trying to pull a Trump, last I heard his administration was trying to push through 'anti-voting fraud' laws that essentially was voter suppression by a different name.

It's fairly blatant that this is just an attempt to dissuade students from voting in future since they proved to be an influential part of this election that weren't in the Tories' favour.

What rubbish - if people are voting legitimately why would they be dissuaded. If they have nothing to hide they have no reason to be put off.

[Tom4784]

What rubbish - if people are voting legitimately why would they be dissuaded. If they have nothing to hide they have no reason to be put off.

It's okay if you don't understand what Voter Suppression is but you should probably go look it up before you call someone else's opinion rubbish whilst displaying to everyone that you completely missed the point.

This is just a tactic to demonise voters, to put the legitimacy of an unfavourable demographic to question and to make it harder for people to vote legitimately in the future. It wouldn't surprise me if someone uses this story to push through a law that requires students to return home to vote, something that wouldn't be possible for many students. That is voter suppression in the guise of anti-voting fraud because it makes it harder for people of certain demographics to vote.

Practice what you preach because you often accuse people of not supporting the democratic process for not agreeing with you but you are in support of what is a thinly veiled attempt at Voter Suppression.

How shamelessly hypocritical.

[user104658]

What rubbish - if people are voting legitimately why would they be dissuaded. If they have nothing to hide they have no reason to be put off.

Because they would most likely be automatically enrolled at their parent's address when they turn 18, and the enhanced "security" on multiple registrations would make it more difficult for them to register elsewhere (e.g. in their University town). As many students live hundreds of miles from their home town, it is impossible for them to travel to that polling station, meaning that they either need to go through a now-more-difficult enrollment process in their Uni town, or arrange a postal vote.

A lot of students keep their permanent registered address as their parents address throughout University because there's a lot of moving around, from Halls, into private rentals, then a new one the next year, etc.

I had three different addresses in the 4 years I was at Uni.

[the truth]

This left wing corruption by the hordes of selfish corrupt violent students, should be taking up 80% of the bbc and cnn news coverage just to balance up with the 80% mass coverage of the non russian fake news story....theyll do anything to ensure sick old people pay for the free education for useless degree courses for arrogant less than intelligent students

[jet]

Ah, the Tories and their supporters must be getting desperate if they are resorting to what is essentially Voter Suppression.

The majority of students didn't vote for a Tory government and they aren't going to in the future, this is just an attempt to disparage and discourage a demographic that isn't favourable to the Tories from voting in the future. It's fairly transparent.

The Tories aren't likely going to retain power in the next election, instead of trying to discourage people from voting they should perhaps think about why they did so **** in this election and learn from their mistakes.

Yes, they didn't lie to young voters about unlikely to happen 'no fees' YAY! :cheer2: to make sure they voted not only once, but more if possible. Shady, sneaky Corbyn. He hadn't even worked out HOW that could be achieved and now he is backtracking and saying it will only be done 'if it is affordable'. lol

A little part of me wants him to become PM and have to deal with all the promises he made and with Brexit. He'll soon find that his eternal student mindset isn't up to the position. It's a job for mature adults, not rebel rousing immoral troublemakers.

[jet]

Okay, I see you have nothing of value to add to what I said then. Just more Corbyn obsession on your part with nothing of substance or interest to back it up.

Every response you come up with is either 'Corbyn this! 'Corbyn that!' or I know you are but what am I?' It's so very dull. I know what you'll write before you write it.

What about your endless mantra of 'I know you are but what am I?' Bloody hell.

[Tom4784]

Yes, they didn't lie to young voters about unlikely to happen 'no fees' YAY! :cheer2: to make sure they voted not only once, but more if possible. Shady, sneaky Corbyn. He hadn't even worked out HOW that could be achieved and now he is backtracking and saying it will only be done 'if it is affordable'. lol

A little part of me wants him to become PM and have to deal with all the promises he made and with Brexit. He'll soon find that his eternal student mindset isn't up to the position. It's a job for mature adults, not rebel rousing immoral troublemakers.

This is the problem right here. This attitude.

Ignoring a problem and trying to divert attention away from it by attacking the opposition doesn't fix the problem at hand. Too many Tories and their supporters are deluding themselves about the state of their party by constantly attacking Labour and JC so they don't have to think about it.

The Tories are in power until the next Election which won't be for years yet, How long are the Tories and their supporters gonna keep attacking a hypothetical situation instead of facing the actual reality of the current government and the challenges it faces?

It's just a ****ing tragic attitude to have.

[Tom4784]

What about your endless mantra of 'I know you are but what am I?' Bloody hell.

Most of Brillo's responses to posts consist of basically repeating what's said been said to her back at the opposition with no context or understanding of what's been said to her, hence me replying by saying 'I know you are but what am I?' because that's all she essentially responds with when in a discussion.

Honestly, this should be completely obvious to anyone with a bit of reading comprehension, why am I explaining this to people who are older and act like they are wiser than I am?

[jet]

This is the problem right here. This attitude.

Ignoring a problem and trying to divert attention away from it by attacking the opposition doesn't fix the problem at hand. Too many Tories and their supporters are deluding themselves about the state of their party by constantly attacking Labour and JC so they don't have to think about it.

The Tories are in power until the next Election which won't be for years yet, How long are the Tories and their supporters gonna keep attacking a hypothetical situation instead of facing the actual reality of the current government and the challenges it faces?

It's just a ****ing tragic attitude to have.

I'm not a Tory supporter. I just enjoy criticising the horrendous Corbyn.

[Tom4784]

I'm not a Tory supporter. I just enjoy criticising the horrendous Corbyn.

Oh, so you're just obsessed then.

[jet]

Oh, so you're just obsessed then.

Yes, obsessed with enjoying myself. lol

[Brillopad]

Most of Brillo's responses to posts consist of basically repeating what's said been said to her back at the opposition with no context or understanding of what's been said to her, hence me replying by saying 'I know you are but what am I?' because that's all she essentially responds with when in a discussion.

Honestly, this should be completely obvious to anyone with a bit of reading comprehension, why am I explaining this to people who are older and act like they are wiser than I am?

You are so transparent. I will Respond to whatever posts I choose to and will not be ordered by you to respond. I understand more than you on most occasions but often feel your replies don't interest me enough to respond, although I will admit they often don't make much sense to me.

Many of yours are too shouty, too hysterical and too repetative for my taste.

[Brillopad]

Yes, they didn't lie to young voters about unlikely to happen 'no fees' YAY! :cheer2: to make sure they voted not only once, but more if possible. Shady, sneaky Corbyn. He hadn't even worked out HOW that could be achieved and now he is backtracking and saying it will only be done 'if it is affordable'. lol

A little part of me wants him to become PM and have to deal with all the promises he made and with Brexit. He'll soon find that his eternal student mindset isn't up to the position. It's a job for mature adults, not rebel rousing immoral troublemakers.

He is indeed backtracking. Either realised that 100bn was unaffordable, even to him salivating at the possibility of getting his hands on public money, or it was vote getting rhetoric all along.

[jennyjuniper]

This thread is about the Students behaviour and the steps they will go to to get those free uni fees, not Corbyn's.

:pat:

I read about this on another site. I wouldn't be suprised if it's true:shrug:

[arista]

I read about this on another site. I wouldn't be suprised if it's true:shrug:


Its a bit late now to Dig it UP

[Brillopad]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/842687/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-news-Laura-Pidcock-carlisle-mp-Trevor-Phillips-Jess-Phillips

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/14/men-on-left-sexist-labour-womens-rights


https://www.otsnews.co.uk/labour-lefties-racist-sexist-questions-jeremy/

Hypocrisy, sexism and a dosy leader - new labour. Is that really what 'modern' Britain wants or needs?

[Oliver_W]

While I don't like Corbyn as a politician, this is a petty thing to use to get at him. He was just thoughtless, that's all.

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/842687/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-news-Laura-Pidcock-carlisle-mp-Trevor-Phillips-Jess-Phillips

Hypocrisy, sexism and a dosy leader - new labour. Is that really what 'modern' Britain wants or needs?

Are we talking about a guy who remembered to take his umbrella versus a woman who didn’t? or are we talking about a political party who’s had two female leaders versus a political party who’s had none and therefore must be sexist?

If it’s the first, I refuse to discuss it, other than to say, if I was out in the rain without my brolly, I wouldn’t expect a bloke to come to my rescue.

[user104658]

:nono: Chivalry is sexist. Silly ho should have brought her own umbur-ella ella ella ay ay ay.

[Brillopad]

Are we talking about a guy who remembered to take his umbrella versus a woman who didn’t? or are we talking about a political party who’s had two female leaders versus a political party who’s had none and therefore must sexist?

If it’s the first, I refuse to discuss it, other than to say, if I was out in the rain without my brolly, I wouldn’t expect a bloke to come to my rescue.

Did you even read it. He was given an umbrella, she wasn't. Missed the point completely.

[Withano]

'Doesn't share an umbrella in under 2.5 seconds' is probably your strongest anti-Corbyn argument yet

[DemolitionRed]

Did you even read it. He was given an umbrella, she wasn't. Missed the point completely.

So it is about the umbrella :facepalm: Blame the person who gave Corbyn the brolly and not him... FFS!

[Brillopad]

So it is about the umbrella :facepalm: Blame the person who gave Corbyn the brolly and not him... FFS!

Plus he didn't share it plus it was part of a wider criticism of Corbyn and the left FFS!

[Tom4784]

http://m5.i.pbase.com/o3/10/634010/1/87651635.ExdwAP6i.DSC06554_s.jpg

[Kizzy]

Just cross the floor Jess you might as well, you do a better job than the tories of undermining Labour.

[user104658]

Plus he didn't share it plus it was part of a wider criticism of Corbyn and the left FFS!Chivalry is sexist ffs :nono: you wouldn't have a problem with it if it was another man that he heinously failed to share his umbrella with.

Sigh.

Also most likely scenario is that he has a personal aide of some sort who thought to bring him the umbrella, whereas rank and file MPs might not have such assistance. Exactly the same thing would happen if T-May was getting wet in the rain; some assistant or other would scramble to get her an umbrella, everyone else would have to fend for themselves.

Note the important point here is that he didn't ASK for an umbrella... People in general just tend to be more concerned with pleasing the boss :shrug:. It's not really an equality issue and certainly not a gender issue. It's mostly just an umbrella issue.

[Kizzy]

He didn't know the brolly was there.... wow, Laura is right in what she says that clip highlights a very important point, when Labour are the most powerful they most critical.

[Oliver_W]

Plus he didn't share it plus it was part of a wider criticism of Corbyn and the left FFS!

Again, who cares if he didn't share it? Attack him for his policies, not for being thoughtless at one particular time.

[Brillopad]

Again, who cares if he didn't share it? Attack him for his policies, not for being thoughtless at one particular time.

Some clearly do. I criticise him when I feel there is something to criticise not when others say so. Is that Ok!

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/842687/labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-news-Laura-Pidcock-carlisle-mp-Trevor-Phillips-Jess-Phillips

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/14/men-on-left-sexist-labour-womens-rights


https://www.otsnews.co.uk/labour-lefties-racist-sexist-questions-jeremy/

Hypocrisy, sexism and a dosy leader - new labour. Is that really what 'modern' Britain wants or needs?

We can all do that!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/diane-abbott-car-crash-interview-boris-johnson-radio-4-today-theresa-may-general-election-a7775631.html

https://medium.com/brexit-britain/are-tories-becoming-the-sexist-racist-pigs-of-parliament-fc6af836faa0

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/784162/conservative-social-club-blackpool-sexist-witches-cows-forced-35k

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/07/having-theresa-may-charge-will-perpetuate-tory-lie-party-great-place-women

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/may-conservatives-are-male-white-and-sexist-8696908.html

[Brillopad]

We can all do that!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/diane-abbott-car-crash-interview-boris-johnson-radio-4-today-theresa-may-general-election-a7775631.html

https://medium.com/brexit-britain/are-tories-becoming-the-sexist-racist-pigs-of-parliament-fc6af836faa0

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/784162/conservative-social-club-blackpool-sexist-witches-cows-forced-35k

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/07/having-theresa-may-charge-will-perpetuate-tory-lie-party-great-place-women

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/may-conservatives-are-male-white-and-sexist-8696908.html

We can indeed. Remind me when I said we couldn't! :shrug:

[Brillopad]

http://m5.i.pbase.com/o3/10/634010/1/87651635.ExdwAP6i.DSC06554_s.jpg

Lol

[DemolitionRed]

We can indeed. Remind me when I said we couldn't! :shrug:

Where did I say, you said we couldn't? :shrug:

[Tozzie]

http://m5.i.pbase.com/o3/10/634010/1/87651635.ExdwAP6i.DSC06554_s.jpg

This made me literally laugh out loud :joker:

[Oliver_W]

Some clearly do. I criticise him when I feel there is something to criticise not when others say so. Is that Ok!

Sure it is, but over-criticising someone makes real criticisms lose their impact. Like, the Nazi rally in Charlottesville, I nearly didn't believe it was actually Nazis, because certain segments paint anyone who's right leaning as Nazi, so I took it as "oh yeah, here we go again", when they were actually right for once. Sorry for the slight tangent, but Corbyn's history has shown him as being, well, like the article suggests, so :shrug:

[Brillopad]

Sure it is, but over-criticising someone makes real criticisms lose their impact. Like, the Nazi rally in Charlottesville, I nearly didn't believe it was actually Nazis, because certain segments paint anyone who's right leaning as Nazi, so I took it as "oh yeah, here we go again", when they were actually right for once. Sorry for the slight tangent, but Corbyn's history has shown him as being, well, like the article suggests, so :shrug:

I get your point about over-criticising and impact and I completely agree - it's just that sometimes that tit-for-tat nit-picking can be contagious. I will try to resist! :shame:

[Brillopad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/brexit-effect-sees-biggest-boom-us-tourists-visiting-uk-since/

Good news for Britain and Brexit.

[arista]

Yes Brillo
Its the Magic of Money Exchanges
I have observed it all,in Central London.

[Withano]

The pound being worthless that one time did that

[Brillopad]

The pound being worthless that one time did that

The drop in the pound is pretty insignificant in my book. I feel there is a solidarity out there for us and Brexit. I also believe people are sticking two fingers up at ISIS terrorist scum.

[DemolitionRed]

Its everything to do with the drop in the British pound and anyone who tries to kid us otherwise must think we are stupid.

People tend to holiday where their money goes further and that's certainly true of Britain atm. Its also true that a staggering per cent of Brits are choosing to holiday in the UK this year. Lets not kid ourselves its because the scenery is more beautiful and the weather's more reliable! Have you looked at inflation figures compared to real wages recently? Haven't you noticed the ongoing mass sales or a number of shops presently boarding up their windows?

The Euro is presently too expensive and so is the dollar. All-inclusive packages abroad are presently high for those Brits going abroad because people simply don't have as much surplus cash.

[Brillopad]

Its everything to do with the drop in the British pound and anyone who tries to kid us otherwise must think we are stupid.

People tend to holiday where their money goes further and that's certainly true of Britain atm. Its also true that a staggering per cent of Brits are choosing to holiday in the UK this year. Lets not kid ourselves its because the scenery is more beautiful and the weather's more reliable! Have you looked at inflation figures compared to real wages recently? Haven't you noticed the ongoing mass sales or a number of shops presently boarding up their windows?

The Euro is presently too expensive and so is the dollar. All-inclusive packages abroad are presently high for those Brits going abroad because people simply don't have as much surplus cash.

I didn't say the pound had nothing to do with it but there are other issues more significant ATM.

In my experience people would ordinarily be put off coming to Britain with the current terrorist threat and would usually put safety concerns above saving a few quid, but I feel people are showing ISIS that won't bow down to their threats. People can get quite determined when dealing with such cretins.

[Smithy]

I didn't say the pound had nothing to do with it but there are other issues more significant ATM.

In my experience people would ordinarily be put off coming to Britain with the current terrorist threat and would usually put safety concerns above saving a few quid, but I feel people are showing ISIS that won't bow down to their threats. People can get quite determined when dealing with such cretins.

:joker::joker::joker:

[Brillopad]

:joker::joker::joker:

:pat: :pat: :pat: :pat: and one for good measure! :hehe:

[jaxie]

I saw this yesterday, it's great that there is a silver lining to a lowered value pound.

[Brillopad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/20/jeremy-corbyns-claim-many-people-want-pay-tax-clear-debt-fund/

As usual, and as expected from many politicians who aspire to becoming the next PM, words are cheap.

[Greg!]

Hew actually cares if people earning over £150k want to pay more tax or not? Make them do it anyway.

[Withano]

Who said Brillopad in the mirror three times?

[smudgie]

So he got that one wrong.
If people want to help with the debt etc they can make donations....but only a tiny amount of people have.
Anyone earning over £43K already pay extra tax..so earning £150K a year they pay a hell of a lot of tax.

[Kizzy]

If it meant keeping the NHS I would pay more tax, I don't mind taxes personally I don't believe in lifting those on low incomes out of paying tax.
I'd like to see everyone pay proportionate to their income, it would save those who pay tax feeling like they are propping up those on low incomes leading to divisions within society.

[Kizzy]

Silver lining?... no, us being nothing but the equivalent of a sunday drive to a stately home and tea room to the rest of the world is not a silver lining.

[Brother Leon]

People want to visit ASAP before it goes down the ****ter.

[JTM45]

People want to visit ASAP before it goes down the ****ter.

Spot on!:thumbs:
They want to be able to tell their grand children ''i was there before it was destroyed by Brexit and it wasn't half bad''.:laugh:

[Niamh.]

If it meant keeping the NHS I would pay more tax, I don't mind taxes personally I don't believe in lifting those on low incomes out of paying tax.
I'd like to see everyone pay proportionate to their income, it would save those who pay tax feeling like they are propping up those on low incomes leading to divisions within society.

It's going to cost people alot more otherwise, look at medical costs in the states, crazy

[Oliver_W]

If people earn a lot of money, they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of their money. 20% of £150k is still a lot of money, and they want to pay more of it, there's plenty of charities they can give to.

[smudgie]

If people earn a lot of money, they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of their money. 20% of £150k is still a lot of money, and they want to pay more of it, there's plenty of charities they can give to.

They already pay 40% on anything over £43K on top of the normal allowances that other people get.

[Oliver_W]

They already pay 40% on anything over £43K on top of the normal allowances that other people get.

Yup, and they shouldn't pay more than 20%, like the lesser earners. There should be a flat tax rate.

[smudgie]

Yup, and they shouldn't pay more than 20%, like the lesser earners. There should be a flat tax rate.

I totally agree.

[user104658]

I strongly believe that the best thing for the economy is for more disposable income to be in the hands of people who will actually spend it; i.e. working people (and also those in receipt of benefit). So in principle, I'm actually in favour of the highest tax rate being the 40% rate (no 45% or 50% rate), and also, I would raise the thresholds of each band rather than lowering it, including the 0% band (I think 0% under 14k would be reasonable).

I would definitely not support a 20% tax band across the board on all earnings... it would be unworkable. Full time minimum wage is roughly £1200 a month which is ALREADY only just about enough to scrape rent, bills and food.... if you take 20% off of that then min wage take home would be closer to £950 a month.

There HAS to be a basic threshold of subsistence (shelter, fuel, food) that is allowed for before the government starts taking a slice of the pie.

Also remember that the 0% band doesn't only apply to people on low incomes... the first £11.5k of your earnings is tax free no matter HOW much you earn.



Current rates are:

Personal Allowance (0%)
Up to £11,500

Basic rate (20%)
£11,501 to £45,000

Higher rate (40%)
£45,001 to £150,000

Additional rate (45%)
over £150,000


I personally would support:

Personal Allowance (0%)
Up to £14,000

Basic rate (20%)
£14,001 to £55,000

Higher rate (40%)
£55,001 and above

Additional rate
none


Though obviously you couldn't do something that drastic over night, it would be a significant restructuring of tax income.



Oh... also I would never have VAT any higher than 12.5%. 20% is a ridiculous VAT rate.

[user104658]

Oh and I also think that a couple's tax free allowance should be fully transferrable. IMO it's somewhat ridiculous that a family with two working parents on £25,000 currently has a significantly higher take-home pay than a couple with one earner on £50k and the other stay-at-home. In other words, for families, tax rates should apply to the household rather than each individual. Literally everything else that is means-tested is tested against household income so why isn't tax?

[Oliver_W]

I would definitely not support a 20% tax band across the board on all earnings... it would be unworkable. Full time minimum wage is roughly £1200 a month which is ALREADY only just about enough to scrape rent, bills and food.... if you take 20% off of that then min wage take home would be closer to £950 a month.
When I say there should be a flat rate, I still believe in the current tax-free allowance, and even that it should be higher - but I also think everyone who does pay tax should pay the same percentage.

[Brillopad]

Oh and I also think that a couple's tax free allowance should be fully transferrable. IMO it's somewhat ridiculous that a family with two working parents on £25,000 currently has a significantly higher take-home pay than a couple with one earner on £50k and the other stay-at-home. In other words, for families, tax rates should apply to the household rather than each individual. Literally everything else that is means-tested is tested against household income so why isn't tax?

I don't know but I would imagine it may be related to the higher costs/expenses of a two-parent income i.e. childcare. One would assume that the non-working parent is providing childcare.

[Kizzy]

I would tax everyone I would have a 5% rate for those under 11,500 just so nobody can say that they aren't contributing but like TS I would offset that by reducing VAT.
I would come after tax avoiders.

[DemolitionRed]

Corporation tax is the problem. http://www.progressivepulse.org/economics/the-quantity-of-money/ Its economic incompetence.

[GiRTh]

A flat tax rate is not workable. It puts too much burden on the lower incomes who are simply unable to pay as much as the higher incomes. A progressive taxation system is much fairer regarding a more equal distribution of wealth.

Its a fascinating subject that cannot easily be summed up in a nice 20 - 30 word post. There are many economic theories that all work but the best system is to pull the best ideas from each theory.

The question is how does a country become a rich country? And I dont believe a flat or regressive tax rate can achieve growth at a sufficient rate.

[smudgie]

I strongly believe that the best thing for the economy is for more disposable income to be in the hands of people who will actually spend it; i.e. working people (and also those in receipt of benefit). So in principle, I'm actually in favour of the highest tax rate being the 40% rate (no 45% or 50% rate), and also, I would raise the thresholds of each band rather than lowering it, including the 0% band (I think 0% under 14k would be reasonable).

I would definitely not support a 20% tax band across the board on all earnings... it would be unworkable. Full time minimum wage is roughly £1200 a month which is ALREADY only just about enough to scrape rent, bills and food.... if you take 20% off of that then min wage take home would be closer to £950 a month.

There HAS to be a basic threshold of subsistence (shelter, fuel, food) that is allowed for before the government starts taking a slice of the pie.

Also remember that the 0% band doesn't only apply to people on low incomes... the first £11.5k of your earnings is tax free no matter HOW much you earn.



Current rates are:

Personal Allowance (0%)
Up to £11,500

Basic rate (20%)
£11,501 to £45,000

Higher rate (40%)
£45,001 to £150,000

Additional rate (45%)
over £150,000


I personally would support:

Personal Allowance (0%)
Up to £14,000

Basic rate (20%)
£14,001 to £55,000

Higher rate (40%)
£55,001 and above

Additional rate
none


Though obviously you couldn't do something that drastic over night, it would be a significant restructuring of tax income.



Oh... also I would never have VAT any higher than 12.5%. 20% is a ridiculous VAT rate.

I would like to see the tax free allowance taken up to £15K.

[Oliver_W]

A flat tax rate is not workable. It puts too much burden on the lower incomes who are simply unable to pay as much as the higher incomes.
They wouldn't be paying as much - 20% of £16k is less than 20% of £100k.

[GiRTh]

Percentage its the same but proportionally its much more. The logic being that the person on 16k paying 20% would impact their disposable income much more than a person paying 20% on 100k. :thumbs:

[Oliver_W]

Percentage its the same but proportionally its much more. The logic being that the person on 16k paying 20% would impact their disposable income much more than a person paying 20% on 100k. :thumbs:
Someone who earns £100k evidently works much harder than someone earning £16k, why shouldn't they have more disposable income? What's more, people live to their means. Someone who bought a sic mansion and keep it ticking along with their family inside wouldn't appreciate being told to pay more tax.

[GiRTh]

Someone who earns £100k evidently works much harder than someone earning £16k, why shouldn't they have more disposable income? What's more, people live to their means. Someone who bought a sic mansion and keep it ticking along with their family inside wouldn't appreciate being told to pay more tax.I bring you back to the question I posed - How does a country become rich?

[Oliver_W]

I bring you back to the question I posed - How does a country become rich?

What do you mean by "a country" ? /if you mean the people within it, they can become rich by working hard, and if they don't work hard they don't deserve to be rich.

[GiRTh]

What do you mean by "a country" ? /if you mean the people within it, they can become rich by working hard, and if they don't work hard they don't deserve to be rich.Oh dear. :facepalm:

What's the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics? (http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110.asp)

[user104658]

What do you mean by "a country" ? /if you mean the people within it, they can become rich by working hard, and if they don't work hard they don't deserve to be rich.

The American Dream? I'm pretty sure even Americans don't believe in that any more :joker:.

[DemolitionRed]

What do you mean by "a country" ? /if you mean the people within it, they can become rich by working hard, and if they don't work hard they don't deserve to be rich.

This is such a neoliberal way of thinking.

My husband earns considerably more money than I do but its a business he inherited some years ago that just earns him money without him doing very much at all. I could work a forty hour week doing a professional job and never earn what he earns working a ten to fifteen hour week. I don't begrudge him his earnings because I benefit from it too but please don't suggest my job has less value than his.

[DemolitionRed]

What do you mean by "a country" ? /if you mean the people within it, they can become rich by working hard, and if they don't work hard they don't deserve to be rich.

This is such a neoliberal way of thinking.

[Oliver_W]

Oh dear. :facepalm:

What's the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics? (http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110.asp)
So what's your definition of "a country", and how can it be made rich?

This is such a neoliberal way of thinking.

My husband earns considerably more money than I do but its a business he inherited some years ago that just earns him money without him doing very much at all. I could work a forty hour week doing a professional job and never earn what he earns working a ten to fifteen hour week. I don't begrudge him his earnings because I benefit from it too but please don't suggest my job has less value than his.
Someone worked hard to build that business. By running it he's creating and maintaining jobs - that's pretty darn valuable.

[user104658]

Nah you can scale it right back to the bottom end of the scale if you ask me. I don't earn "a lot", but my pay is considerably more than, for example, someone working in a busy fast food place.

Full disclosure; I don't work anywhere near as hard as they do. :shrug: I don't work anywhere near as hard as my own min wage cleaner 90% of the time!

Could I be doing better if I had worked harder? Maybe / probably but basically, the idea that "harder working people are the ones who earn more" is just nonsense. There are a lot of rich lazy people in the world; and even more very hard working people just scraping by.

The highest earners, most of the time, get where they are through a combination of luck and privilege. Knowing or getting to know the right people, being in the right place at the right time. It's not that hard work isn't involved - - I'm sure people then have to work to make the most of those opportunities - - but having them in the first place takes more than "hard work".

[GiRTh]

So what's your definition of "a country", and how can it be made rich?

.As I said in my first post, its a fascinating subject that cannot be easily summed up. I think its an area where neither left wing or right wing economics are correct, and again as I said in my first post, you have to take the best ideas from each economic theory to get the best result.

[Kizzy]

Someone worked hard to build that business. By running it he's creating and maintaining jobs - that's pretty darn valuable.

The point was that it was not her husband, therefore he was not initially the one who 'worked hard'.
How can your 'worked hard' theory be transferable down the generations?

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/24/brexit-eec-britain-efta

Is this the answer? Thoughts?

[Crimson Dynamo]

To sum up, joining Efta would mean the end of EU powers over UK trade policy; the UK would regain the flexibility in free trade it has always fought for (sometimes literally). It would mean the end of ECJ jurisdiction and the boosting of sovereignty in a useful, rather than a rhetorical (or theoretical) way. It would mean substantially reduced UK contributions to the EU – perhaps by 60%, if the Swiss contributions are anything to go by. And it means Brexit can be completed with the least disruption to the UK’s economic relationship with Europe, avoiding the chaos that seems increasingly inevitable given the timescale remaining before departure.

Brexiteers and Remainers will identify downsides. But creating much-needed certainty will help restore confidence, and may even help restore some trust in our politicians. Joining Efta provides a solid foundation for dealing with other sensitive issues, such as the Irish border and the role of the City of London.

But it’s not only the optimal solution: it’s optimistic as well. The UK would be welcomed by Efta, if the Efta court’s president’s words are to be believed. Efta, he said, could be the “natural home for the UK post-Brexit”. And he’s right.

EFTA=European Free Trade Association.

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

He caved in to pressure then, I knew he would. First he u-turns on clearing all student debt, then he u-turns on pledge to axe benefit freeze and now he is doing a u-turn on Brexit, the single market and open borders. And people complained about May. She was more honest than him. Basically he has sacrificed his 'principles' to further his career and be PM. Pathetic man.

People aren't stupid and most leavers will not be impressed by his dishonesty and open border policy. We will see if this desperate attempt at winning power will work!

[Withano]

You could have just added this to the end of one of your other twentyfive anti-corbyn threads but na u love a good spam.

[Kizzy]

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit

He caved in to pressure then, I knew he would. First he u-turns on clearing all student debt, then he u-turns on pledge to axe benefit freeze and now he is doing a u-turn on Brexit, the single market and open borders. And people complained about May. She was more honest than him. Basically he has sacrificed his 'principles' to further his career and be PM. Pathetic man.

People aren't stupid and most leavers will not be impressed by his dishonesty and open border policy. We will see if this desperate attempt at winning power will work!

That never happened, maybe he has just listened to advice hmmm?... Not that that will stop your anti Corbyn raving.

[the truth]

hes a dangerous fool...I agree may has been way ore straight and lets face it the economy is booming compared to the usual disaster labour left us in

[lewis111]

Oh ffs sake
Because Theresa May and tbis Torie Government have NEVER U-Turned on anything :

[Brillopad]

Oh ffs sake
Because Theresa May and tbis Torie Government have NEVER U-Turned on anything :

Exactly - and look at the stick she got from Corbyn supporters. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy here you know!

May (whatever some think of her) was at least more honest than Corbyn in not making lots of rash promises to win the election. May pretty much stuck with her 'austerity' policies, with a few changes, which understandably did not go down well with much of the electorate. She was forced to soften her approach due to public opinion but, unlike Corbyn, she did not make bold, irresponsible promises, some of which Corbyn has already reneged on, purely to win the election. And he hasn't even got in yet, imagine what other u-turns he may carry out if he actually does and no longer needs to curry favour to win an election.

She tried to stick to her party's policies of reducing the public deficit in order to improve the economy long term - whatever peoples' view on that. She should have done more for the NHS - but that's not my point, my point is she was more honest and not just saying what people desperately wanted to hear after years of austerity.

In my book Corbyn, and all his promises, is one big con for desperate people looking for better times. It would simply be a repeat of Labour's tainted history of plenty of broken promises. We have seen it all before. All talk and no action as usual.

May has also announced that she will resign on 30th August 2019 after she has seen Brexit through, no doubt bowing down to public opinion and giving the party a better chance at the next election. Couldn't see Corbyn doing that - he is too desperate for power, as was demonstrated by his refusal to stand down as Labour leader after several demands he do so by his own party.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/846296/Theresa-May-Brexit-UK-Conservative-Party-Prime-Minister-David-Davis-Jacob-Rees-Mogg

[Oliver_W]

B-but he's a decent and principled man!!!111

[Brillopad]

B-but he's a decent and principled man!!!111

Not an ambitious politician like the rest of them!!

[joeysteele]

Another misleading thread.
Labour has been got at over the last 2 years for NOT saying what its brexit policies actually are.

Now after talking to people,business and other sources it spells one out more clearly.
Then is accused of a u-turn.

All Parties including the govt.are having to re think what they have said,looked for and planned.

What may come as to any final deal is unpredictable for any Party or anyone to say at this time.
As to these plans, if there has to be a short or longer proposed transition period,then that in itself means the UK has not then yet fully left.

So it makes perfect sense to me to remain with all the in place benefits and issues until full severance.
I see nothing wrong at all with this announcement and there will also be plenty changes of thinking coming from the govt.too as to what they were briefly outlining a year ago.

[Brillopad]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-federal-government-kezia-dugdale-devolution-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-stv-a7913876.html

He is cranking it up a notch now. Desperate measures and all that!

Apart from anything else Britain isn't large enough for a federal government, which is commonly believed to work better in large countries such as the America.

[Brillopad]

Another misleading thread.
Labour has been got at over the last 2 years for NOT saying what its brexit policies actually are.

Now after talking to people,business and other sources it spells one out more clearly.
Then is accused of a u-turn.

All Parties including the govt.are having to re think what they have said,looked for and planned.

What may come as to any final deal is unpredictable for any Party or anyone to say at this time.
As to these plans, if there has to be a short or longer proposed transition period,then that in itself means the UK has not then yet fully left.

So it makes perfect sense to me to remain with all the in place benefits and issues until full severance.
I see nothing wrong at all with this announcement and there will also be plenty changes of thinking coming from the govt.too as to what they were briefly outlining a year ago.

You were one of her biggest critics for her u-turns, but singing a different tune when it's Corbyn! No surprise there! :roll eyes:

[joeysteele]

You were one of her biggest critics for her u-turns, but singing a different tune when it's Corbyn! No surprise there! :roll eyes:

The calling of the election is what I ridiculed her for in the main.

How can you u turn on something you havent yet finally decided totally on anyway.
Which is the Brexit hope and idea of all Parties still yet having to all re think their positions as to it.

When you equally criticise May and the govt for u turns and wrongs maybe then I'll take notice of any possible legitimate criticism of Labour.
Which the one in this thread in my view,falls well short of being.

[Brillopad]

The calling of the election is what I ridiculed her for in the main.

How can you u turn on something you havent yet finally decided totally on anyway.
Which is the Brexit hope and idea of all Parties still yet having to all re think their positions as to it.

When you equally criticise May and the govt for u turns and wrongs maybe then I'll take notice of any possible legitimate criticism of Labour.
Which the one in this thread in my view,falls well short of being.

But Corbyn has always been against EU membership and supported a hard Brexit with no single market - a soft Brexit is the next best thing to remaining in the EU. Recently there has been a lot of pressure from his party and certain papers to soften his approach to help his chances at the next election and opt for a 'soft Brexit'.

It amounts to 'screw principles' and go with what gives you the best chance of winning the next election. Most importantly it ultimately ignores the referendum result which is what many remainers have wanted all along! Somehow, I wonder why, it always comes back to that - remainers getting their way even if it means overturning a democratic vote. How very undemocratic of a supposedly democratic socialist party!

[DemolitionRed]

But Corbyn has always been against EU membership and supported a hard Brexit with no single market - a soft Brexit is the next best thing to remaining in the EU. Recently there has been a lot of pressure from his party and certain papers to soften his approach to help his chances at the next election and opt for a 'soft Brexit'.

It amounts to 'screw principles' and go with what gives you the best chance of winning the next election. Most importantly it ultimately ignores the referendum result which is what many remainers have wanted all along! Somehow, I wonder why, it always comes back to that - remainers getting their way even if it means overturning a democratic vote. How very undemocratic of a supposedly democratic socialist party!

Do you understand what a democratic government means? Party leaders in this country aren't a one man band and if and when they do become PM, they don't become 'supreme leaders' like they do in the U.S. They have to pay attention to their shadow cabinet.

If Corbyn has listened to his own party regarding a softer Brexit, that makes him Democratic. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

[Brillopad]

Do you understand what a democratic government means? Party leaders in this country aren't a one man band and if and when they do become PM, they don't become 'supreme leaders' like they do in the U.S. They have to pay attention to their shadow cabinet.

If Corbyn has listened to his own party regarding a softer Brexit, that makes him Democratic. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

One example, another is bowing down to pressure. Your version is a whitewash in my opinion.

Less of the 'do I understand' patronising attitude please - no need for it.

[Underscore]

As a Lib Dem I welcome this. Still wouldn't trust either Corbyn or May as far as I could throw them.

In a tactical vote now though, I'd be more willing to choose Labour over Tories purely for SM.

[joeysteele]

Do you understand what a democratic government means? Party leaders in this country aren't a one man band and if and when they do become PM, they don't become 'supreme leaders' like they do in the U.S. They have to pay attention to their shadow cabinet.

If Corbyn has listened to his own party regarding a softer Brexit, that makes him Democratic. It really isn't any more complicated than that.



Exactly, you also put it far better than I would have.

[bots]

i have no issue with political parties changing direction based on informed feedback, whatever its source, provided its benefiting the country. No-one should.

People will always moan if they can't stand the political party, no matter if they are doing it for the best of reasons, that's where it gets childish and serves little purpose

[Brillopad]

i have no issue with political parties changing direction based on informed feedback, whatever its source, provided its benefiting the country. No-one should.

People will always moan if they can't stand the political party, no matter if they are doing it for the best of reasons, that's where it gets childish and serves little purpose

Depends if that 'informed feedback' is based on an agenda i.e. Winning an election at all costs. It should also never attempt to overturn a public vote which it is now doing.

[bots]

Depends if that 'informed feedback' is based on an agenda i.e. Winning an election at all costs. It should also never attempt to overturn a public vote which it is now doing.

no-one was completely informed at the time of the vote, so no-one could vote for anything more than a principal. The principle was that we are leaving the EU, that is happening, the details of that MUST be worked out for the maximum benefit of the country, not to satisfy individuals lust for whatever agenda they may have.

[Brillopad]

no-one was completely informed at the time of the vote, so no-one could vote for anything more than a principal. The principle was that we are leaving the EU, that is happening, the details of that MUST be worked out for the maximum benefit of the country, not to satisfy individuals lust for whatever agenda they may have.

So you support a second referendum then by the sound of it. In the opinion of many that undermines a democratic vote - no-one said anything at the time that there would be a second referendum vote if some did not like the result. We were led to believe that was it. It is all clearly very convenient and agenda driven.

[Jack_]

So you support a second referendum then by the sound of it. In the opinion of many that undermines a democratic vote - no-one said anything at the time that there would be a second referendum vote if some did not like the result. We were led to believe that was it. It is all clearly very convenient and agenda driven.

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

HOW MANY MORE TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT????

[Crimson Dynamo]

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

HOW MANY MORE TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT????

that is unrelated to what Brillo said

Farage is not an MP and unfinished business is not "There will be another referendum" not that he would be able to do anything about that, not being part of the government

[Oliver_W]

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

HOW MANY MORE TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT????

Farage has said a lot of stuff, shall we take that as gospel too?

[Tom4784]

It's easier to ignore the unholy mess that is the current Tory government as long as you can distract yourself with Corbyn hate.

[bots]

So you support a second referendum then by the sound of it. In the opinion of many that undermines a democratic vote - no-one said anything at the time that there would be a second referendum vote if some did not like the result. We were led to believe that was it. It is all clearly very convenient and agenda driven.

no, i don't support a 2nd ref, the decision has been made

[Brillopad]

It's easier to ignore the unholy mess that is the current Tory government as long as you can distract yourself with Corbyn hate.

Np problems within the Labour Party then! Less than pretty mess themselves. As for 'hate' you seem pretty familiar with that and your hate of May. :wavey:

[Tom4784]

A second referendum is pointless, people made their mistake and now they've got to live with the consequence of leaving with no plans in place and a government that doesn't really want to leave in the first place (which, ironically, the leavers voted for).

Democratic elections and referendums have consequences, a lot of people are gonna hopefully learn not to vote in ignorance once Brexit unfolds.

[Tom4784]

Np problems within the Labour Party then! Less than pretty mess themselves. As for 'hate' you seem pretty familiar with that and your hate of May. :wavey:

You've just proved me right, Corbyn's not leading the current government, he is the opposition so focusing on him is silly since you are literally just ignoring what's actually happening within the government because you dislike reality. This isn't a labour government, focusing your hate on him won't make the Tories' mistakes go away.

You really need to learn to make good comparisons, comparing your Corbyn obsession to my dislike of May is, again, silly and nonsensical. I don't spend my days googling articles from any and all sources no matter how terrible they are (We shall never forget you quoting Buzzfed and Urban Dictionary as 'credible' sources).

[Jack_]

that is unrelated to what Brillo said

Farage is not an MP and unfinished business is not "There will be another referendum" not that he would be able to do anything about that, not being part of the government

Except Brillo (and others) constantly talk about how 'remoaners' can't accept a democratic result and that in still continuing to campaign for a cause they believe in (whether they want a second referendum or not), they are anti-democracy. So I'm just pointing out (for the umpteenth time) that everyone's favourite Wanker Banker Nigel Farage himself pretty much said before the referendum that he'd be doing the same thing if the result had gone the other way.

But you knew that anyway

Farage has said a lot of stuff, shall we take that as gospel too?

I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that had the referendum result been the reverse, he'd have continued to campaign to leave the EU for the foreseeable future. And I'd have had no problem with that, just as I have no problem with those who wish to remain in the EU (or at least want a different kind of Brexit than this government does) protesting and campaigning for what they believe in either.

Unlike many people on this forum, I don't believe that democracy begins and ends at the ballot box. Unlike them, I'm not anti-democracy.

Just here to point out the double standards!

[Kizzy]

You were one of her biggest critics for her u-turns, but singing a different tune when it's Corbyn! No surprise there! :roll eyes:

The difference between the two is he has cemented what his stance is based on the good of the UK taking into account the wants and needs of citizens as well as the economy and business. He has in fact listened to what people want and reacted accordingly, it is in no way the same as the out and out lies told by may prior to the election.

Let's analyse the facts, what has May U turned on? All the policies that were offered carrot and stick style to the poor, disabled, homeless and low paid.
Can you deny that, could you give me one example where she hasn't gone back on manifesto pledges that directly disadvantage the most vulnerable?

[Brillopad]

You've just proved me right, Corbyn's not leading the current government, he is the opposition so focusing on him is silly since you are literally just ignoring what's actually happening within the government because you dislike reality. This isn't a labour government, focusing your hate on him won't make the Tories' mistakes go away.

You really need to learn to make good comparisons, comparing your Corbyn obsession to my dislike of May is, again, silly and nonsensical. I don't spend my days googling articles from any and all sources no matter how terrible they are (We shall never forget you quoting Buzzfed and Urban Dictionary as 'credible' sources).

You do like that word hate don't you, seeing as you use it all the time - it is just so emotive and hysterical, right up your street and good to throw around for effect.

Of course I don't like the man or his policies and when I see an article that I would like to pass comment on I will - what's your problem with that? To try to equate political discourse with real hate just dilutes and undermines the value of the word - again weak! This is a forum, you shouldn't have a problem with that unless of course you simply don't like people expressing opinions you don't agree with. Of course the Tories have made mistakes, I just believe Corbyn's will be worse - again what is the issue here?

'Spending my days googling articles' that is about as weak a dig as it gets: A) I have a service that brings up current news articles, so I don't have to google very much and B) I have been off work this week. Is that ok with you?

As for me ONCE quoting a buzzfeed article and ONCE an urban dictionary definition - where do I start!! You are the one spending your time tracking what sources I quote from, which is rather odd, and should therefore know the wide variety of sources I quote from - more than many who stick to the same biased tired old sources every time.

Honestly anyone would think you were trying to turn SD into a left-wing only opinion-based section. :nono:

[DemolitionRed]

Honestly anyone would think you were trying to turn SD into a left-wing only opinion-based section. :nono:

And from the number of posts you post, anyone would think you are trying to turn SD into a Right-wing, anti Islam based section.

Every time I come on here of late, there are numerous posts either demonizing Muslims or demonizing the Left. Whilst you may have a small fan club, there are many posters on here who adamantly disagree with your hard anti-Corbyn, anti-Left and anti-Islam rhetoric and you're not about to convert them. If you want everyone to agree with you then you can't post this sort of stuff on here.

[Kizzy]

And from the number of posts you post, anyone would think you are trying to turn SD into a Right-wing, anti Islam based section.

Every time I come on here of late, there are numerous posts either demonizing Muslims or demonizing the Left. Whilst you may have a small fan club, there are many posters on here who adamantly disagree with your hard anti-Corbyn, anti-Left and anti-Islam rhetoric and you're not about to convert them. If you want everyone to agree with you then you can't post this sort of stuff on here.

Great point DR, needed to be said I agree, it's getting way beyond a joke. I can pick up a tabloid if I want this level of propaganda!

[waterhog]

don't hate him but he has not got a clue and is not a leader ? we are just on a loop and going round and round.

[JTM45]

And from the number of posts you post, anyone would think you are trying to turn SD into a Right-wing, anti Islam based section.

Every time I come on here of late, there are numerous posts either demonizing Muslims or demonizing the Left. Whilst you may have a small fan club, there are many posters on here who adamantly disagree with your hard anti-Corbyn, anti-Left and anti-Islam rhetoric and you're not about to convert them. If you want everyone to agree with you then you can't post this sort of stuff on here.

:clap1:

This used to be a great place for discussion but now it's just somewhere you have to bite your tongue while a few (very few) poorly informed, narrow-minded people shout their bitter propaganda.........again and again and again.:bored:

[Brillopad]

:clap1:

This used to be a great place for discussion but now it's just somewhere you have to bite your tongue while a few (very few) poorly informed, narrow-minded people shout their bitter propaganda.........again and again and again.:bored:

Truth is you and a few others can't handle opinions different to your own and constantly try to shut them down by name-calling or some other put down tactics. It really is pathetic and downright childish.

I post some anti-Corbyn threads and some threads on mass immigration. All stated in a reasonable way using reasonable language. I don't swear or use unacceptable terms but get called unacceptable names by a few for sharing opinions not in agreement with their own.

Corbyn and Mass immigration are very much current news at the moment - very high profile subjects, on the news and in the newspapers and are subjects that affect us all. Unfortunately a handful of people seem to be trying to enforce censorship on this site when people express strong views different to their own and effectively foot-stamp constantly.

Is this or is it not an adult forum for the expression of adult opinions because sometimes people could certainly be forgiven for thinking it wasn't. I have been made to feel uncomfortable by that same handful of people for sticking to my guns and not bowing downing to their attempted intimidation. I have posted some harmless articles mainly from national newspapers ffs - stop being such drama queens. And you talk of being bored.

Maybe I should see it as a compliment as the constant OTT reactions by that same few to my relatively harmless posts suggests to me that they see my posts as some kind of threat. Otherwise why wouldn't they simply ignore them or put me on ignore. Human behaviour can be so telling.

[joeysteele]

:clap1:

This used to be a great place for discussion but now it's just somewhere you have to bite your tongue while a few (very few) poorly informed, narrow-minded people shout their bitter propaganda.........again and again and again.:bored:

Spot on again.

However I stress again how can this be a u-turn, when those anti Labour across the board,have criticised Labour for never spelling out brexit plans or policy.

Then call an announcement a u-turn.
That's the incorrect terminology of the whole statement of this thread.

It was believed in hopefully 2 years by this govt,that we would have all in place to be out the EU in that time.
Business and other sources have warned possibly years of a slower transition will be needed,
Even this govt. now accepts that is 'more' than likely.

So Labour feel for that transitional period,we should remain in the single market.
There's no u turn,just a realisation of what is best or needed until we reach full severance from the EU.

Corbyn is still taking the UK out of the EU,nothings changed there at all.
He and Labour would still after the transition period,cessation full membership of the single market on current terms.

As a leader he has to lead but also has to listen,just as in the new reality of politics now,Mrs May has to listen to her more moderate voices on Europe again in her own govt.

The bile that gets thrown Corbyn and Labour on every reaction to political change on plans from the govt.is really tiresome.
Especially when all the alterations of original plans of the govt are glossed over and sidestepped by those simply pushing their own bias against a Party and leader they don't personally like.

That is not reasoned debating at all,nor is it 'seeking' reasoned debate either, as you sort of point out in your post above.

[Crimson Dynamo]

a member insults tibb forum members, mods and admin and another member comes on to post an agreement

wow

[Brillopad]

Spot on again.

However I stress again how can this be a u-turn, when those anti Labour across the board,have criticised Labour for never spelling out brexit plans or policy.

Then call an announcement a u-turn.
That's the incorrect terminology of the whole statement of this thread.

It was believed in hopefully 2 years by this govt,that we would have all in place to be out the EU in that time.
Business and other sources have warned possibly years of a slower transition will be needed,
Even this govt. now accepts that is 'more' than likely.

So Labour feel for that transitional period,we should remain in the single market.
There's no u turn,just a realisation of what is best or needed until we reach full severance from the EU.

Corbyn is still taking the UK out of the EU,nothings changed there at all.
He and Labour would still after the transition period,cessation full membership of the single market on current terms.

As a leader he has to lead but also has to listen,just as in the new reality of politics now,Mrs May has to listen to her more moderate voices on Europe again in her own govt.

The bile that gets thrown Corbyn and Labour on every reaction to political change on plans from the govt.is really tiresome.
Especially when all the alterations of original plans of the govt are glossed over and sidestepped by those simply pushing their own bias against a Party and leader they don't personally like.

That is not reasoned debating at all,nor is it 'seeking' reasoned debate either, as you sort of point out in your post above.

I assume you are not conveniently forgeting the bile thrown at May at the election, often from those making the most fuss at any criticism of Corben, often sinking as low as insulting her looks. Is that ok in your book then? Not at all one-sided then. Accept it, admit it - non-left-wing opinions are not well accepted on here by some and censorship is attempted by the worst offenders.

[DemolitionRed]

Spot on again.

However I stress again how can this be a u-turn, when those anti Labour across the board,have criticised Labour for never spelling out brexit plans or policy.

Then call an announcement a u-turn.
That's the incorrect terminology of the whole statement of this thread.

It was believed in hopefully 2 years by this govt,that we would have all in place to be out the EU in that time.
Business and other sources have warned possibly years of a slower transition will be needed,
Even this govt. now accepts that is 'more' than likely.

So Labour feel for that transitional period,we should remain in the single market.
There's no u turn,just a realisation of what is best or needed until we reach full severance from the EU.

Corbyn is still taking the UK out of the EU,nothings changed there at all.
He and Labour would still after the transition period,cessation full membership of the single market on current terms.

As a leader he has to lead but also has to listen,just as in the new reality of politics now,Mrs May has to listen to her more moderate voices on Europe again in her own govt.

The bile that gets thrown Corbyn and Labour on every reaction to political change on plans from the govt.is really tiresome.
Especially when all the alterations of original plans of the govt are glossed over and sidestepped by those simply pushing their own bias against a Party and leader they don't personally like.

That is not reasoned debating at all,nor is it 'seeking' reasoned debate either, as you sort of point out in your post above.

I fully support this shift in Labour policy and I'd love to have a reasoned debate on this new political strategy but I don't feel I can do that here because the title of this thread made it clear from the get go, that this is just another thread about damning Corbyn.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I fully support this shift in Labour policy and I'd love to have a reasoned debate on this new political strategy but I don't feel I can do that here because the title of this thread made it clear from the get go, that this is just another thread about damning Corbyn.

make a thread then..

[Brillopad]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/27/labour-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-policy-change

Labour MPs warn of backlash if Corbyn shifts Brexit stance - which was my point exactly.

[Brillopad]

http://www.cityam.com/271894/corbyns-cunning-eu-plan-has-ended-abject-failure

A cunning man indeed, but not quite cunning enough. He played dirty and now he is lying with his face in the mud.

[Withano]

"Ok Google, search the web for Corbyn is very very bad"
*copies link, opens tibb, pastes link*

[Brillopad]

"Ok Google, search the web for Corbyn is very very bad"
*copies link, opens tibb, pastes link*

Do you have to do a google search for current news items then - you poor thing. I would have thought you would be more up-to-date than that! :hehe:

[DemolitionRed]

This champagne drinking, cigar smoking, Jaguar driving ex Scotish conservative MP is a biased journalist who spends his life twittering all things bad about Corbyn and he's not very good at it.

[Brillopad]

This champagne drinking, cigar smoking, Jaguar driving ex Scotish conservative MP is a biased journalist who spends his life twittering all things bad about Corbyn and he's not very good at it.

Unlike all those biased Guardian and Independent journalists the left love to quote. The facts are still the facts as demonstrated by Corbyn's continued electioneering several months after the election and constant u-turns on Brexit. It all adds up!

[user104658]

Article opens;

"A year ago, Labour was on the wrong side of history"

Just Labour was it? Is that how we're remembering Brexit? Tories were all for it and Labour against?

http://i65.tinypic.com/207aiqu.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2d8f920.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2i0yrlv.jpg


:think:

Another trash article Brillo, you need to start being more discerning :nono:. When the first bloody SENTENCE is biased, revisionist nonsense you know you're in for something special.

[smudgie]

Not a wise move.
It's all a bit transparent as to his reasons.

[Oliver_W]

Pick your battles, Brillo. Who cares that a career politician was driving his career, when, as pointed out above, everyone was at it?

[DemolitionRed]

Unlike all those biased Guardian and Independent journalists the left love to quote. The facts are still the facts as demonstrated by Corbyn's continued electioneering several months after the election and constant u-turns on Brexit. It all adds up!

All adds up to what?!?! This isn't news... he's not telling us anything we don't know. This is just a spit and venom blog that has people like you sitting up and taking notice. There's nothing new in that Tory article other than Monteith's own twist and very deliberate negatives like, cunning plan and fatally flawed, downfall, disaster, damaging, exposed, deceiver, rat and crisis, to have us all believe the Labour party are a cunning manipulative bunch of ******s but he really wouldn't bother putting pen to paper if he didn't genuinely see the Labour party as the real threat that it is.

[Brillopad]

Pick your battles, Brillo. Who cares that a career politician was driving his career, when, as pointed out above, everyone was at it?

The difference for me is that a few on here will insist on keep painting him as purer than the driven snow, a so-called 'principled' polititian when he clearly isn't. He gets down and dirty with the rest of them and is no more trustworthy.

[Brillopad]

All adds up to what?!?! This isn't news... he's not telling us anything we don't know. This is just a spit and venom blog that has people like you sitting up and taking notice. There's nothing new in that Tory article other than Monteith's own twist and very deliberate negatives like, cunning plan and fatally flawed, downfall, disaster, damaging, exposed, deceiver, rat and crisis, to have us all believe the Labour party are a cunning manipulative bunch of ******s but he really wouldn't bother putting pen to paper if he didn't genuinely see the Labour party as the real threat that it is.

Calm down, you are giving the impression the article rattles you!

[user104658]

The difference for me is that a few on here will insist on keep painting him as purer than the driven snow

No one except you has mentioned Corbyn for like a month :think:.

[jaxie]

I think his confused messages on the EU could be a shot in the foot with all those Labour voters who voted leave but the rapturous worshippers will worship regardless. I expect time will tell. The problem with people who think you can do no wrong surrounding you is that you start to believe it. He needs to look at May and the last election to see how that turned out.

[Oliver_W]

The difference for me is that a few on here will insist on keep painting him as purer than the driven snow, a so-called 'principled' polititian when he clearly isn't. He gets down and dirty with the rest of them and is no more trustworthy.

Well, if you pick on him for every little thing, like holding an umbrella or acting like a politician, people will just roll their eyes pre-emptively when you mention something substantive, you'll open yourself up to "here we go agains" without people listening.

[Brillopad]

Well, if you pick on him for every little thing, like holding an umbrella or acting like a politician, people will just roll their eyes pre-emptively when you mention something substantive, you'll open yourself up to "here we go agains" without people listening.

Point taken! I suspect I have a looser grasp on self-control than you when annoyed by something.

[Kizzy]

Calm down, you are giving the impression the article rattles you!

My guess is that is your goal with these threads that you spam across the forum.
This opinion piece from the director of an organisation that has been structured specifically with the goal of moving the UK from the EU since 1997 is not in any place to judge anyone elses motives.



What is wrong with campaigning and preparedness in these politically uncertain times anyway?...

[DemolitionRed]

Calm down, you are giving the impression the article rattles you!

Don't tell me to calm down when you spend all your spare time hunting out nonsense like what you posted in the op. I'm not trying to get a hysterical message across.

[Tom4784]

Article opens;

"A year ago, Labour was on the wrong side of history"

Just Labour was it? Is that how we're remembering Brexit? Tories were all for it and Labour against?

http://i65.tinypic.com/207aiqu.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2d8f920.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2i0yrlv.jpg


:think:

Another trash article Brillo, you need to start being more discerning :nono:. When the first bloody SENTENCE is biased, revisionist nonsense you know you're in for something special.

Tbh the topic should have ended here. The article is trash and revisionist.

[Brillopad]

Don't tell me to calm down when you spend all your spare time hunting out nonsense like what you posted in the op. I'm not trying to get a hysterical message across.

As I have told you previously I don't need to hunt down articles. If one of interest to me pops up on my screen when I log in that suits me.

It wasn't me being hysterical btw. I simply created a thread on a current newsworthy article. You come on here quite a lot yourself expressing your views or are only those with the 'right' views allowed to do so. This throwing toys out of prams malarkey by some because the subject matter is not in keeping with their personal/political views is tedious.

[Tom4784]

Calm down, you are giving the impression the article rattles you!

I assume that's the point of posting the article.

You only bring up Corbyn to bait a response from people, it's why your go to argument in any debate is to bring him up even when he isn't related to the subject, because it's a targeted attack on the person you disagree with.

[Kizzy]

Aw Theresas first U Turn... * sniff* it seems like yesterday :bawling:

https://i1.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/theresa-may.jpg?resize=540%2C315

[Brillopad]

Tbh the topic should have ended here. The article is trash and revisionist.

Why because it is critical of 'king' Corbyn? The attempt to control what news subjects can be posted on here is what is more off-putting.

[Tom4784]

Why because it is critical of 'king' Corbyn? The attempt to control what news subjects can be posted on here is what is more off-putting.

Because, if you acknowledged TS' post instead of ignoring it because you can't argue against it, then you would have to accept that the article tried to make out that only Labour Supported Remain when the issue of Brexit divided ALL the parties. From the very first sentence it had a critical inaccuracy that informed the rest of the article, thus voiding it of validity.

Again, you keep trying to attack people by making out they worship Corbyn but you are the only one that talks about him anymore. You are the one making topics about him, you are the one bringing him up in unrelated topics. You are obsessed with him and no one else is. You are confusing your imagination in which everyone worships Corbyn to the reality in which you are the only one talking about him and that's quite worrying.

[Brillopad]

Because, if you acknowledged TS' post instead of ignoring it because you can't argue against it, then you would have to accept that the article tried to make out that only Labour Supported Remain when the issue of Brexit divided ALL the parties. From the very first sentence it had a critical inaccuracy that informed the rest of the article, thus voiding it of validity.

Again, you keep trying to attack people by making out they worship Corbyn but you are the only one that talks about him anymore. You are the one making topics about him, you are the one bringing him up in unrelated topics. You are obsessed with him and no one else is. You are confusing your imagination in which everyone worships Corbyn to the reality in which you are the only one talking about him and that's quite worrying.




Have you checked the date of the article - it is current news, you know something on our TVs and in our newspapers daily. Our country is experiencing uncertain times and many are interested in current events that affect all our lives even if you aren't. That isn't attacking people - it is presenting a different opinion. You are the one obsessed, obsessed with the word obsessed - as you have accused me of being obsessed about several different things. This is Serious Debates is it not, or are we only supposed to be interested in sex dolls and sausage rolls!

[Kizzy]

Why because it is critical of 'king' Corbyn? The attempt to control what news subjects can be posted on here is what is more off-putting.

No, what's off putting is you attempting to pass an opinion piece off as fact.

[Brillopad]

No, what's off putting is you attempting to pass an opinion piece off as fact.

You think the Guardian reporters don't present opinion pieces in their articles. Wake-up!

Please point what part of the article was a lie?

[Kizzy]

You seem to find a lot quite worrying as it seems to have become a mantra of yours. I could reccommend Kalms from your local health shop - they are helpful to those that suffer from anxiety.

Have you checked the date of the article - it is current news, you know something on our TVs and in our newspapers daily. Our country is experiencing uncertain times and many are interested in current events that affect all our lives even if you aren't. This is Serious Debates is it not, or are we only supposed to be interested in sex dolls and sausage rolls!

Then why are you focusing on the leader of the opposition? The person who is maintaining the status quo for some while subjecting others to a life of poverty and degradation is the current govt... Where are the voxpops in relation to that?

Discussing Corbyn at the moment is tantamount to discussion on sausage rolls as he is no the one in power making all the decisions is he?...

[Tom4784]

You seem to find a lot quite worrying as it seems to have become a mantra of yours. I could reccommend Kalms from your local health shop - they are helpful to those that suffer from anxiety.

Have you checked the date of the article - it is current news, you know something on our TVs and in our newspapers daily. Our country is experiencing uncertain times and many are interested in current events that affect all our lives even if you aren't. That isn't attacking people - it is presenting a different opinion. You are the one obsessed, obsessed with the word obsessed - as you have accused me of being obsessed about several different things. This is Serious Debates is it not, or are we only supposed to be interested in sex dolls and sausage rolls!

So you've chosen to ignore the grave revisionist inaccuracy in the article because an inaccuracy supports your agenda more than the actual reality of what happened. Says it all really.

[Brillopad]

Then why are you focusing on the leader of the opposition? The person who is maintaining the status quo for some while subjecting others to a life of poverty and degradation is the current govt... Where are the voxpops in relation to that?

Discussing Corbyn at the moment is tantamount to discussion on sausage rolls as he is no the one in power making all the decisions is he?...

No, much to his distain, and he is trying very to be. His views are not 'maintaining the status quo' in the eyes of many, of which I am clearly one, and therefore his behaviour is of interest to me.

[Kizzy]

You think the Guardian reporters don't present opinion pieces in their articles. Wake-up!

Please point what part of the article was a lie?

I can separate opinion from fact and present them accordingly. I didn't say any of it was a lie, just an opinion, one mans opinion.

[Tom4784]

I wouldn't slate the discussions about sausage rolls and sex robots, they're better than the spam topics like this one since they are promoting discussion. This topic is just you trying to bait people.

Like I've said before. You should just start three topics entitled 'I hate Jeremy Corbyn' ' I hate Muslims' and 'I hate the EU' and keep all these repetitive topics to one of those three threads because you are killing this section with spam.

[Kizzy]

No, much to his distain, and he is trying very to be. His views are not 'maintaining the status quo' in the eyes of many, of which I am clearly one, and therefore his behaviour is of interest to me.

Good! What has the 'status quo' done?... The country is on it's arse! Austerity as an economic model has never worked it has been used many times before.

There has to be a point where you say, is there not a better way? Even if it was the conservatives saying it I would listen.

[Brillopad]

I wouldn't slate the discussions about sausage rolls and sex robots, they're better than the spam topics like this one since they are promoting discussion. This topic is just you trying to bait people.

Like I've said before. You should just start three topics entitled 'I hate Jeremy Corbyn' ' I hate Muslims' and 'I hate the EU' and keep all these repetitive topics to one of those three threads because you are killing this section with spam.

You accuse me of trying to bait people - an opinion piece!

Current political issues posted in Serious Debates are spam because they don't encourage discussion - as in the opinion of Dezzy. Do you get how ridiculous that sounds?

What YOU really mean is you don't want ME posting anywhere on tibb because your personal opinions should dictate what and who can post. Whatever!

[Kizzy]

You accuse me of trying to bait people - an opinion piece!

Current political issues posted in Serious Debates are spam because they don't encourage discussion - as in the opinion of Dezzy. Do you get how ridiculous that sounds?

What YOU really mean is you don't want ME posting anywhere on tibb because your personal opinions should dictate what and who can post. Whatever!

Why should anyone have your views thrust upon them when you have admitted in this thread you ave no intention of entertaining anything that goes against the 'status quo'?

You are exposing yourself as nothing but a hypocrite.

[Brillopad]

Why should anyone have your views thrust upon them when you have admitted in this thread you ave no intention of entertaining anything that goes against the 'status quo'?

You are exposing yourself as nothing but a hypocrite.

What are you talking about? I said that many didn't believe that Corbyn was balancing the status quo which is what I thought you were saying. Where did I say 'I had no intention of entertaining anything that goes against the status quo'?

Getting pretty fed up with all this putting words in peoples' mouths.

[DemolitionRed]

No, what's off putting is you attempting to pass an opinion piece off as fact.

That's exactly what she did :facepalm:

[Brillopad]

That's exactly what she did :facepalm:

All newspaper articles have a slant and therefore are basically a news story come opinion piece. I have read the same newspaper articles in several papers telling the same story with different slants.

Point out any inaccuracies/untruths stated in that article! It is the information that counts, not the slant/opinion. :facepalm:

You often real off a lot of information in your posts without anything to back it up and expect people to take your word for it so please don't lecture me about opinion pieces.

[DemolitionRed]

All newspaper articles have a slant and therefore are basically a news story come opinion piece. I have read the same newspaper articles in several papers telling the same story with different slants.

Point out any inaccuracies/untruths stated in that article! It is the information that counts, not the slant/opinion. :facepalm:

You often real off a lot of information in your posts without anything to back it up and expect people to take your word for it so please don't lecture me about opinion pieces.

News is factual and impartial. Bloggers are story tellers and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I enjoy reading blogs if they are well written and I'll admit, the sort of blogs I want to read are ones that confirm my biases. When I want to read the news though, I want journalism that carries honesty, integrity, and fairness.

I often type out my opinions. If its factual, then its either something that's well known and a given or its something I post a link to. I probably post more links on here than most people, though I appreciate, most people won't open those links. If its an opinion, its something I've taken a personal interest in and likely something that was routed in solid journalism. If I suspect something is propaganda, I check its legitimacy.

The article you posted has no substance. Its just a long sarcastic rant about something we already know and already have an opinion on. All parties, at some point, will mimic other parties or look at ways to pull the 'no' voters on board. He mentions in the article... sarcastically, that Corbyn hasn't stopped campaigning since the last election... like that's a bad thing! All good politicians need to keep that campaign momentum up and active if they want to be seen as progressive. Both Labour and the Conservatives know they are going to alienate a percentage of supporters if they choose the rock or the hard place and so both those parties will likely take the option that will do them as a party, the least amount of damage.

[Tom4784]

You accuse me of trying to bait people - an opinion piece!

Current political issues posted in Serious Debates are spam because they don't encourage discussion - as in the opinion of Dezzy. Do you get how ridiculous that sounds?

What YOU really mean is you don't want ME posting anywhere on tibb because your personal opinions should dictate what and who can post. Whatever!

I didn't say political issues in SD are spam, I said your topics were. You post a thread and you try to shut down anyone who thinks differently to you, you don't debate anything you just try to silence anyone that thinks differently to you. You are incapable of debate because all you want is a reaction. It's why you won't create one thread with all this **** in because you know the people you want to bait won't bother reading it but it's harder to ignore when you're spamming it all over the section and shoving down everyone's throats while doing your best to deny anyone that thinks differently to you their opinion.

Honestly Brillo when it comes to your last point, how many times have you tried to peddle that bull**** argument about me? It's especially laughable considering how I'm constantly stating that everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone else is entitled to their views on that opinion. It's just more proof that you don't actually read posts, you just pretend that people responded in a way you wanted them to and run with that. the way you tried to make out that I said political issues in SD are spam is proof of this. You read what you want to read and what you want to read rarely reflects reality.

I notice you still are refusing to acknowledge TS' post about the major factual inaccuracies of your source.

[Vicky.]

As with EU/Brexit threads...Merged these threads. I did warn about the multiple threads on same subject. Obviously if there is actual new news then a new thread is needed. A new thread is not really needed for opinion pieces or old news.

Also to add, if anyone feels any member is taking the pee a little with spamming opinion pieces, please report it. Do NOT report if you just dislike the members opinions. Thanks.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm glad that all these things are being bunched into one. I can't see why it wouldn't work. I'm always pleased when I see a new topic I can participate in but joining a new topic just to be on the defensive gets tedious.

[Kizzy]

All newspaper articles have a slant and therefore are basically a news story come opinion piece. I have read the same newspaper articles in several papers telling the same story with different slants.

Point out any inaccuracies/untruths stated in that article! It is the information that counts, not the slant/opinion. :facepalm:

You often real off a lot of information in your posts without anything to back it up and expect people to take your word for it so please don't lecture me about opinion pieces.

Newspapers report the facts and have quotes and statistics to back them up these can be presented with a slant but just because they are it doesn't mean that they then become purely opinion.

Where in the opinion piece is the evidence to back up his claims? A reader shouldn't have to go searching high and low to see is what is being suggested is credible.

Personally should I quote something I try to make a point of including a direct quote in respect of the topic or a credible statistic if it warrants it, that said it isn't always required here is it as this is a debate forum for opinion.

Therefore you can't object to people offering their opinion on certain topics, they are not attempting to pass them off as fact as you are doing here with this vlog.

[Brillopad]

Tbh the topic should have ended here. The article is trash and revisionist.

Ah there you go again trying to ride the coat tails of a superior poster yet again. You are no TS. The only one you are kidding is yourself.

[Kizzy]

Ah there you go again trying to ride the coat tails of a superior poster yet again. You are no TS. The only one you are kidding is yourself.

It could be worse, he could be a right wing vlogger kidding you... :/

[Kizzy]

Daily mail found to by print propaganda and lies pre election is forced to issue a retraction.

'The headline to an article on 12 May, based on a leaked draft of the Labour party’s election manifesto, said that Labour’s ‘class war manifesto would cost every family £4,000’. We are happy to clarify that, as the article stated, the £4,000 was an average figure and did not represent an estimate of the amount Labour was planning to raise in taxes from each family.'


At the time, The Daily Mail seemingly chose to ignore the fact that Labour’s manifesto would have meant tax rises for only the top 5% of earners in the UK. And it also ignored the fact that the Conservative manifesto was largely uncosted.

Corbyn-bashing ****rag

By the time of the ‘clarification’, however, the damage had already been done. With an overall reach of 31 million people a month, the tabloid impacts public opinion. This could be people actively reading it, or stumbling across its headlines on their social media feeds. So for it to casually publish such misleading propaganda just a month before an election is the height of bad journalism. But then, nothing less should be expected from The Daily Mail.


https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/22/taken-daily-mail-four-months-admit-misled-public-corbyn-image/

[Kizzy]

Daily mail found to by print propaganda and lies pre election is forced to issue a retraction.

'The headline to an article on 12 May, based on a leaked draft of the Labour party’s election manifesto, said that Labour’s ‘class war manifesto would cost every family £4,000’. We are happy to clarify that, as the article stated, the £4,000 was an average figure and did not represent an estimate of the amount Labour was planning to raise in taxes from each family.'


At the time, The Daily Mail seemingly chose to ignore the fact that Labour’s manifesto would have meant tax rises for only the top 5% of earners in the UK. And it also ignored the fact that the Conservative manifesto was largely uncosted.

Corbyn-bashing ****rag

By the time of the ‘clarification’, however, the damage had already been done. With an overall reach of 31 million people a month, the tabloid impacts public opinion. This could be people actively reading it, or stumbling across its headlines on their social media feeds. So for it to casually publish such misleading propaganda just a month before an election is the height of bad journalism. But then, nothing less should be expected from The Daily Mail.


https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/22/taken-daily-mail-four-months-admit-misled-public-corbyn-image/

[Kizzy]

Can't come soon enough!!

'For business, this will mean a focus on ending zero-hours contracts, repealing the Trade Union Act, sectoral collective bargaining, introducing a real National Living Wage, among a host of other policies to improve workers’ rights. The tone of how government approaches businesses will change.'


https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/22/quite-extraordinary-many-business-leaders-think-conservatives/

[Kizzy]

Can't come soon enough!!

'For business, this will mean a focus on ending zero-hours contracts, repealing the Trade Union Act, sectoral collective bargaining, introducing a real National Living Wage, among a host of other policies to improve workers’ rights. The tone of how government approaches businesses will change.'


https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/22/quite-extraordinary-many-business-leaders-think-conservatives/

[DemolitionRed]

Thanks Kizzy,

Right-wing Tory bias journalism was probably the worst its ever been before the last election. From the moment Corbyn started climbing the ranks in popularity, newspapers like The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Express went into a turbocharge of scare tactic revelations.

Propaganda works, the damage was done and very few people will be interested or even aware that the Daily Mail lied to them.

Its not just the newspapers though is it? May and her pundits openly encourage propaganda.

[DemolitionRed]

Double post because the site is sticking.

[Oliver_W]

The top 5% aren't exactly millionaires though, it starts at just £70k...

[DemolitionRed]

The top 5% aren't exactly millionaires though, it starts at just £70k...

Its not about them being millionaires, its about how much tax are they pay and are they paying enough? If you are in that 5% the chances are, you are not paying your fair dues.

[Oliver_W]

Its not about them being millionaires, its about how much tax are they pay and are they paying enough? If you are in that 5% the chances are, you are not paying your fair dues.

Fair dues is 20%, as everyone who pays tax should pay a flat rate.

[DemolitionRed]

Fair dues is 20%, as everyone who pays tax should pay a flat rate.

Personally, we'd be so much better off. No more taxes on company profits :banana:

Then again, flat tax is so complicated and destructive, especially to the welfare system; I couldn't wish it on anyone.

Why do you think a flat rate would be good and how do you think it could work without being destructive to our economy?

[Oliver_W]

Personally, we'd be so much better off. No more taxes on company profits :banana:

Then again, flat tax is so complicated and destructive, especially to the welfare system; I couldn't wish it on anyone.

Why do you think a flat rate would be good and how do you think it could work without being destructive to our economy?

It would be fair, because everyone who pays tax would pay the same proportion. Explain why you think it would be destructive?

[Brillopad]

Daily mail found to by print propaganda and lies pre election is forced to issue a retraction.

'The headline to an article on 12 May, based on a leaked draft of the Labour party’s election manifesto, said that Labour’s ‘class war manifesto would cost every family £4,000’. We are happy to clarify that, as the article stated, the £4,000 was an average figure and did not represent an estimate of the amount Labour was planning to raise in taxes from each family.'


At the time, The Daily Mail seemingly chose to ignore the fact that Labour’s manifesto would have meant tax rises for only the top 5% of earners in the UK. And it also ignored the fact that the Conservative manifesto was largely uncosted.

Corbyn-bashing ****rag

By the time of the ‘clarification’, however, the damage had already been done. With an overall reach of 31 million people a month, the tabloid impacts public opinion. This could be people actively reading it, or stumbling across its headlines on their social media feeds. So for it to casually publish such misleading propaganda just a month before an election is the height of bad journalism. But then, nothing less should be expected from The Daily Mail.


https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/09/22/taken-daily-mail-four-months-admit-misled-public-corbyn-image/

Says the May/Tory bashing ****rag. The far-left equivalent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4652858/Editor-Canary-BOOED-Question-Time-audience.html

[Withano]

God I love Corbyn
Source: me

[DemolitionRed]

It would be fair, because everyone who pays tax would pay the same proportion. Explain why you think it would be destructive?

Because unfortunately its not that simple. I'm sure you would love to read through this massive (http://http://www.2020tax.org/2020tc.pdf) document about how flat tax would work.

1. Lower earners would lose their tax allowance
2. It strongly defends tax havens.
3. It means local authorities will have to depend on 50% of their income from local tax. Fine if your a council for Chelsea but not good for a Barnsley council.
4. It wants to make cuts in healthcare and no longer invest in schooling so the money average earners think they are going to save is going to be more than swallowed up in paying for services that are presently free.
5. It wants to abolish benefits and depress wages because the government assumes that the market will always produce jobs if wages are low enough!

The TPA is callous. Its a con and it relies on lower paid workers believing they will be better off. They won't, they really won't. The last thing its got anything to do with is equality.

[Oliver_W]

Because unfortunately its not that simple. I'm sure you would love to read through this massive (http://http://www.2020tax.org/2020tc.pdf) document about how flat tax would work.
You link doesn't work.

1. Lower earners would lose their tax allowance
How's that?
2. It strongly defends tax havens.
As long as everyone's paying the same percentage, that doesn't matter.
3. It means local authorities will have to depend on 50% of their income from local tax. Fine if your a council for Chelsea but not good for a Barnsley council.
So local councils will have to spend money gotten from the area? Sacre Bleu.
4. It wants to make cuts in healthcare and no longer invest in schooling so the money average earners think they are going to save is going to be more than swallowed up in paying for services that are presently free.

It who? What's that got to do with a flat tax rate?
5. It wants to abolish benefits and depress wages because the government assumes that the market will always produce jobs if wages are low enough!

It who? What's that got to do with a flat tax rate?
The TPA is callous. Its a con and it relies on lower paid workers believing they will be better off. They won't, they really won't. The last thing its got anything to do with is equality.
Who?

[DemolitionRed]

Try looking up 'The Single Income Tax final report of 2020 Tax Commison"

I can assure you everything I said has everything to do with this report.

TPA = Tax Payers Allience

[Vicky.]

I don't see whats wrong with expecting those on very high salaries to pay more to support those who need supporting tbh. If I was earning 200k I would much rather be paying even 50%, than be paying no tax on 15k. I don't see why so many people think its so unfair to expect the more well off to support the less well off. If we were taking like 90% of their entire earnings I would understand the concerns and agree it was unfair./ But even with the higher rates for higher earners, its only what they earn above a certain amount that is taxed at the higher percentage. Like, I will try to explain though don't know the exact percentages or anything tbh

X earns 15k a year. This 15k is taxed at 15%
Y earns 50k a year. Their wages up to 40k are taxed at 15%. Anything they earn above 40k is taxed at 30%
Z earns 150k a year. Their wages up to 40k are taxed at 15%. Up to 80k is 30%. And above 90k is 40%

This IS how it works right? Obviously with tax free allowances and such worked into it, and different percentages? As whenever taxes are discussed, there are usually higher earners kicking off saying 'well I will just cut my hours so I earn less money so I don't have to pay the higher tax rate' which would be a bit...cutting off their own nose to spite their faces as it is not the entire wage thats taxed at the higher rate,. its only what they earn ABOVE the threshold? I have never earned above 30k a year tbh, so don't fully understand, but this is my basic understanding of how it all works. My dad explained it to me when I was fairly young, he had a very decent wage and had to pay the higher rate, so I expect he did actually understand it all :laugh: He used to laugh about colleagues whinging about paying the higher tax rate, as they were only like 2k above the threshold, so really they were being taxed a little bit more, on a very small chunk of their earnings.

Though I do think classing 70k as a very high earner is a bit silly. When I speak of high earners I would mean about 150k+...the kinds of salaries that can afford to use tax havens and such to get away with paying taxes at all.

I do not get the unwillingness of ANY party to deal with tax evasion. The country would have so much more money,. and a few would be pissed off that they can no longer squirrel away ridiculous amounts of money to avoid helping out with the general running of the country and such...I know many people claim these high earners would just bugger off and live somewhere else...but really, when they are avoiding their taxes anyway, its not big loss to us is it? If they own businesses and **** off, someone else willing to actually pay their way will buy the business. So yeah, I generally would prefer all these tight rich people to piss off if they really think its that bad to be expected to pay tax :shrug:

[Oliver_W]

I don't see whats wrong with expecting those on very high salaries to pay more to support those who need supporting tbh.
I don't see why so many people think its so unfair to expect the more well off to support the less well off.

I'm more in the thought of "if you want something, you should earn it; if you earn something, you should get to keep it"

If I was earning 200k I would much rather be paying even 50%, than be paying no tax on 15k.
If higher earners want to give money to charities alongside their taxes, that should be up to them.

X earns 11.5k a year. This is taxed at 20%
Y earns 45k a year. Their wages up to 45k are taxed at 15%. Anything they earn above 45k is taxed at 40%
Z earns 150k a year. Their wages up to 40k are taxed at 45%. (not sure for higher)

This IS how it works right?
Edited to fix, to the best of my offhand knowledge.

Though I do think classing 70k as a very high earner is a bit silly. When I speak of high earners I would mean about 150k+...the kinds of salaries that can afford to use tax havens and such to get away with paying taxes at all.
Well, exactly. While £70k isn't exactly nothing, it's a bit silly to call them super rich, and certainly not what you think of when you hear "top 5%"

I do not get the unwillingness of ANY party to deal with tax evasion.
If everyone paid the same percentage, I'd be more upset about it. People like Jimmy Carr and Adel paying tiny percentages through clever tricks, that tiny percentage is still probably more than most of our families pay in tax in a decade, so I find it hard to care, in fact I say good on 'em. But I would be annoyed if their percentage was the same as our families, and they were dodging it.

Try looking up 'The Single Income Tax final report of 2020 Tax Commison"

I can assure you everything I said has everything to do with this report.

TPA = Tax Payers Allience
I don't care about what the Tax Payers' Alliance want, I have affiliation with them; I just think there should be a flat rate. I don't have to agree with anything else they want, to want that.

[Brillopad]

I'm more in the thought of "if you want something, you should earn it; if you earn something, you should get to keep it"

I'm inclined to agree with that. Higher earners have usually studied for years and worked hard to get to that point. What encouragement is there for those people if there are not sufficient rewards for their efforts?

[Brillopad]

I don't see whats wrong with expecting those on very high salaries to pay more to support those who need supporting tbh. If I was earning 200k I would much rather be paying even 50%, than be paying no tax on 15k. I don't see why so many people think its so unfair to expect the more well off to support the less well off. If we were taking like 90% of their entire earnings I would understand the concerns and agree it was unfair./ But even with the higher rates for higher earners, its only what they earn above a certain amount that is taxed at the higher percentage. Like, I will try to explain though don't know the exact percentages or anything tbh

X earns 15k a year. This 15k is taxed at 15%
Y earns 50k a year. Their wages up to 40k are taxed at 15%. Anything they earn above 40k is taxed at 30%
Z earns 150k a year. Their wages up to 40k are taxed at 15%. Up to 80k is 30%. And above 90k is 40%

This IS how it works right? Obviously with tax free allowances and such worked into it, and different percentages? As whenever taxes are discussed, there are usually higher earners kicking off saying 'well I will just cut my hours so I earn less money so I don't have to pay the higher tax rate' which would be a bit...cutting off their own nose to spite their faces as it is not the entire wage thats taxed at the higher rate,. its only what they earn ABOVE the threshold? I have never earned above 30k a year tbh, so don't fully understand, but this is my basic understanding of how it all works. My dad explained it to me when I was fairly young, he had a very decent wage and had to pay the higher rate, so I expect he did actually understand it all :laugh: He used to laugh about colleagues whinging about paying the higher tax rate, as they were only like 2k above the threshold, so really they were being taxed a little bit more, on a very small chunk of their earnings.

Though I do think classing 70k as a very high earner is a bit silly. When I speak of high earners I would mean about 150k+...the kinds of salaries that can afford to use tax havens and such to get away with paying taxes at all.

I do not get the unwillingness of ANY party to deal with tax evasion. The country would have so much more money,. and a few would be pissed off that they can no longer squirrel away ridiculous amounts of money to avoid helping out with the general running of the country and such...I know many people claim these high earners would just bugger off and live somewhere else...but really, when they are avoiding their taxes anyway, its not big loss to us is it? If they own businesses and **** off, someone else willing to actually pay their way will buy the business. So yeah, I generally would prefer all these tight rich people to piss off if they really think its that bad to be expected to pay tax :shrug:

I don't see why those that worked hard at school and went on to higher education and well paid jobs should support those that pissed about and couldn't be bothered and hence ended up in low paid jobs. They are not their keepers.

[Withano]

I don't see why those that worked hard at school and went on to higher education and well paid jobs should support those that pissed about and couldn't be bothered and hence ended up in low paid jobs. They are not their keepers.

Are you basing this on anything? Is there any country in the world that taxes the rich and the poor equally? Or you just assuming that this could/would work well for any (this?) country?

[Vicky.]

I don't see why those that worked hard at school and went on to higher education and well paid jobs should support those that pissed about and couldn't be bothered and hence ended up in low paid jobs. They are not their keepers.

Except thats not quite what happens. though is it..jesus christ. hard work does not always equal high wages, and infact a hell of a lot of being 'rich' is down to pure luck. People who end up being doctors, for example...they clearly worked very hear to get to where they are. But earn less than people who did a lot less work and were just lucky, or were born into money.

What do we do about disabled people?

What do we do about those who lose jobs through no fault of their own?

How could we run the NHS if higher earners weren't taxed more? Hows about these schools and such...we could hardly afford to do these things if everyone was taxed a flat 20%.

Its hardly as if taxes only go to 'feckless scroungers on JSA who drink their 70 quid benefit money' or anything :S

In any society you will have those who earn more than others, for a variety of reasons. Do you not think that its fair for those earning more to contribute more? If you don't, do you have ANY ideas for how we could run the country when tax income drops even further?

[Vicky.]

I'm more in the thought of "if you want something, you should earn it; if you earn something, you should get to keep it"

Well yes, but its just not feasible for a lot of people, for many reasons to be ABLE to work themselves up to these ridiculously high paid jobs. As I just said to brillo, its not just a case of education and hard work = high wages.



If higher earners want to give money to charities alongside their taxes, that should be up to them.

Yes, high earners can also give to charity. Are you equating paying taxes with giving to charity here? Thats how its coming across :laugh:


Edited to fix, to the best of my offhand knowledge.

I can't argue against this, as I don't actually know besides what my father told me years back. So not sure which is right :p


Well, exactly. While £70k isn't exactly nothing, it's a bit silly to call them super rich, and certainly not what you think of when you hear "top 5%"

I actually find it fairly sad that the 'top 5%' of earners in this country many of them earn like 70k ish. When the companies profits all seem to be astronomical...I do think many more people should be on wages such as 70k. The cost of living is enormous these days...either the cost of living needs to go down, or wages need to go up.

Luckily the increases to the living wage proposed will change the averages and such. Even someone who works in a care home (presently paid as low as possible and made to work a lot of hours, much harder than many people on 70k+ I would bet...and obviously a much needed job) will be on well...lets guess they do 60 hours a week which is not too much of a stretch from carers I know...600 per week before tax. 2400 per month 25k or so. For a job thats presently paid a stupidly low amount and is often looked down on



I don't care about what the Tax Payers' Alliance want, I have affiliation with them; I just think there should be a flat rate. I don't have to agree with anything else they want, to want that.

How would a flat tax rate actually work in reality though? The income from tax would drop horrendously if flat rate was like 20%, OR the rate for everyone would need to be set at like 45%, and then lower earners receive money back in the form of benefits to survive/pay rent. Which I expect would still be an issue for people as 'more people claiming benefits' and such :S And if the benefits received back were set too high, people would have a huge issue, even though the people in receipt of them are actually working. I can see there being hell on if the amounts are set to anything about basic sustenance too.

[Brillopad]

Except thats not quite what happens. though is it..jesus christ. hard work does not always equal high wages, and infact a hell of a lot of being 'rich' is down to pure luck. People who end up being doctors, for example...they clearly worked very hear to get to where they are. But earn less than people who did a lot less work and were just lucky, or were born into money.

What do we do about disabled people?

What do we do about those who lose jobs through no fault of their own?

How could we run the NHS if higher earners weren't taxed more? Hows about these schools and such...we could hardly afford to do these things if everyone was taxed a flat 20%.

Its hardly as if taxes only go to 'feckless scroungers on JSA who drink their 70 quid benefit money' or anything :S

In any society you will have those who earn more than others, for a variety of reasons. Do you not think that its fair for those earning more to contribute more? If you don't, do you have ANY ideas for how we could run the country when tax income drops even further?

It often is. I don't think luck has much to do with it. At the end of the day if you have a goal and do what is needed to get there, you will likely get there.

Too many get side tracked and have other priorities, which is fine, but they shouldn't then complain if their financial circumstances are not as good as others who were more focused.

[Oliver_W]

But earn less than people who did a lot less work and were just lucky, or were born into money.
If they were born into it, then it was earned by someone, and if they chose to let it stay in their family, that's their prerogative. As for luck, if they beat the odds, they should get to keep it.


What do we do about disabled people?

What do we do about those who lose jobs through no fault of their own?

You'd have to look pretty hard to find someone who thinks we should let the disabled or people who lose their jobs stave. No-one here said that.


How could we run the NHS if higher earners weren't taxed more? Hows about these schools and such...we could hardly afford to do these things if everyone was taxed a flat 20%.
/
In any society you will have those who earn more than others, for a variety of reasons. Do you not think that its fair for those earning more to contribute more?
People who earn more do pay more tax - that's how percentages work.


Its hardly as if taxes only go to 'feckless scroungers on JSA who drink their 70 quid benefit money' or anything :S

Anyone who thinks that's where taxes go to is an idiot.

[Vicky.]

It often is. I don't think luck has much to do with it. At the end of the day if you have a goal and do what is needed to get there, you will likely get there.

Too many get side tracked and have other priorities, which is fine, but they shouldn't then complain if their financial circumstances are not as good as others who were more focused.

But again, its not just about focus. For example, someone who studied business or something and got qualified, can then progress to fairly high wages with hard work, I understand that. Though a depressing amount of progressing in the business world comes down to...are you willing to sleep your way up. For females at least. This was my issue. My highest paid job was in the business sector. I was actually passed over for a promotion which would have netted me an extra 10k a year, because I wouldn't sleep with the boss. Left the company fairly soon after that as my life was made hell tbh and I felt fairly unsafe if I was one of the last people in the office :S

People who train in healthcare (which we need, badly) are paid less than someone like me (not now, but back when I was there). And my job was definitely not what I would call 'hard', at all. Complicated at times, and long hours sometimes, but I didn't go home exhausted having spent the entire day running about. The hardest job I ever had was working in bloody burger king! Obviously I am not insinuating that those working in burger king should be paid more as the work is harder though. But back to healthcare...even GPs who have trained for a lot longer, don't earn as much as someone fairly high up in business. Nurses do not earn as much as someone who is just starting out in a business job..

So yeah, its not always hard work + study = better pay. And if everyone decided to just go into high paid sectors, we would be totally screwed as the jobs that are most needed to us are low paid in comparison. This is one of the main reasons I do support taxing higher earners more tbh.

[Oliver_W]

Well yes, but its just not feasible for a lot of people, for many reasons to be ABLE to work themselves up to these ridiculously high paid jobs. As I just said to brillo, its not just a case of education and hard work = high wages.
Then some things just aren't to be. As long as people have warm houses and food, any luxuries they want should be earned.

Yes, high earners can also give to charity. Are you equating paying taxes with giving to charity here? Thats how its coming across :laugh:

Haha, no I'm not. I meant, if people want more of their money to go to good causes, they should pay for it themselves rather than forcing everyone who earns the same amount of money as them to pay more taxes.

I can't argue against this, as I don't actually know besides what my father told me years back. So not sure which is right :p
Maybe it was true once, tax rates change!


I actually find it fairly sad that the 'top 5%' of earners in this country many of them earn like 70k ish. When the companies profits all seem to be astronomical...I do think many more people should be on wages such as 70k. The cost of living is enormous these days...either the cost of living needs to go down, or wages need to go up.

Luckily the increases to the living wage proposed will change the averages and such. Even someone who works in a care home (presently paid as low as possible and made to work a lot of hours, much harder than many people on 70k+ I would bet...and obviously a much needed job) will be on well...lets guess they do 60 hours a week which is not too much of a stretch from carers I know...600 per week before tax. 2400 per month 25k or so. For a job thats presently paid a stupidly low amount and is often looked down on
We'll see on that one. I can't argue about rates of pay going up, I just hope the big companies don't lay off staff so their managers don't get hit in the pocket.

How would a flat tax rate actually work in reality though? The income from tax would drop horrendously if flat rate was like 20%, OR the rate for everyone would need to be set at like 45%, and then lower earners receive money back in the form of benefits to survive/pay rent. Which I expect would still be an issue for people as 'more people claiming benefits' and such :S And if the benefits received back were set too high, people would have a huge issue, even though the people in receipt of them are actually working. I can see there being hell on if the amounts are set to anything about basic sustenance too.

The top rate of tax in the 1950s was 91%, I'm sure people rang the chimes of doom when that was lowered. People would be less likely to evade tax if they were taxed fairly.

[Vicky.]

You'd have to look pretty hard to find someone who thinks we should let the disabled or people who lose their jobs stave. No-one here said that.


Did you see the quote that I was replying to? This was heavily insinuated. That those who cannot earn very high wages just pissed about and can't be arsed.

Also its a depressingly common view that we should let people who lose their jobs starve. hence the support for sanctions for JSA claimants :S

Many think that the disabled just aren't their problem. Not many will say that, but the lack of response from many (not just on here, in general) when the disabled are treat like garbage is astounding. The widespread support for 'ATOS" and their ilk who are actively removing benefits from severely disabled people...and all as the daily mail tells everyone that there are sooo many people falsely claiming benefit. I would be absolutely amazed if more than a handful of people managed to do this, given the huge amounts of proof that are required to be awarded disability benefits in the first place. And even if you have these huge amounts of evidence that you actually are ill, a lot of the time the evidence is ignored and the say so of someone who has done a weeks 'disability awareness' training is taken above the word of numerous qualified doctors, physios, and so on. The hundreds and hundreds of people who have actually died within days/weeks of being told they are fit for work...its ignored. The stories in the press that come out about people who have the mental age of children being told they should be working and benefits removed, are written off as 'one time errors' and such, when they aren't, this is what ATOS is PAID to do. To get people off disability, regardless of if they actually need it or not.

So yeah, I may be hard pushed to find someone who would openly admit to thinking the disabled should starve and so on. However, people who support the WCA in its current form and support the government with things such as cuts to disability allowance, bedroom tax in its current form* (disproportionately affects disabled people who have no option to move as their homes are adapted)...do think this, though they would never say it out loud as they would be outed as the horrible bastards that they are.


*Not in general. Its obviously different if there are places for people to move to, which many think that there are. it IS shocking to penalize people for something they cannot change.

[Vicky.]

Maybe it was true once, tax rates change!



Tax rates change but I don't think that the way taxes are actually collected has changed.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/tax-rates

Marginal bands mean you only pay the specified tax rate on that portion of salary. For instance, if your salary puts you in the 40% tax bracket (over PA+£33,500 in 2017/18), then you only pay 40% tax on the segment of earnings in that income tax band. For the lower part of your earnings, you'll still pay the appropriate 20% or 0%.
Seems I had the right idea? Unless I am understanding this wrong too :laugh:

[Oliver_W]

Tax rates change but I don't think that the way taxes are actually collected has changed.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/tax-rates


Seems I had the right idea? Unless I am understanding this wrong too :laugh:

Yeah the collection methods are pretty much the same.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm inclined to agree with that. Higher earners have usually studied for years and worked hard to get to that point. What encouragement is there for those people if there are not sufficient rewards for their efforts?

You mean like footballers or YouTube stars, winners of the property boom and the inheritors? Is it right that there is a massive social cleansing going on in London? Houses are regularly demolished and redeveloped for the wealthy with multi-million-pound redevelopment. You really do have to be a millionaire to live a comfortable life in a half decent part of London and believe me, many scholars chosen profession does not and never will make them millionaires.

Most of the London Nouveau rich are Russians and Saudis who don't even pay income tax over here but can afford to buy half a street in leafy Islington and leave those houses sitting empty whilst they increase in value. Do you feel the same way about them? Is there something more deserving in your mind between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'?

Britain's poorest households pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes than the richest, according to new data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The poorest 10% of households paid on average 42% of their income in tax in 2015/16.
The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 34.3% of their income in tax.
Council tax and VAT hit the poorest particularly hard, with the poorest 10% of households paying 7% of their gross income in council tax, compared to just 1.5% for the richest, and 12.5% of gross income paid in VAT (5% for rich)
Despite paying far less of their income in tax, the richest 10% have on average a gross income of £110,632, 10 times that of the poorest (£10,992)
Post tax (including direct and indirect taxes and cash benefits) the poorest 10% have on average £6,370 and the richest 10% have £72,746
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/britains-poorest-households-pay-more-their-income-tax-richest

[DemolitionRed]

Did you see the quote that I was replying to? This was heavily insinuated. That those who cannot earn very high wages just pissed about and can't be arsed.

Also its a depressingly common view that we should let people who lose their jobs starve. hence the support for sanctions for JSA claimants :S

Many think that the disabled just aren't their problem. Not many will say that, but the lack of response from many (not just on here, in general) when the disabled are treat like garbage is astounding. The widespread support for 'ATOS" and their ilk who are actively removing benefits from severely disabled people...and all as the daily mail tells everyone that there are sooo many people falsely claiming benefit. I would be absolutely amazed if more than a handful of people managed to do this, given the huge amounts of proof that are required to be awarded disability benefits in the first place. And even if you have these huge amounts of evidence that you actually are ill, a lot of the time the evidence is ignored and the say so of someone who has done a weeks 'disability awareness' training is taken above the word of numerous qualified doctors, physios, and so on. The hundreds and hundreds of people who have actually died within days/weeks of being told they are fit for work...its ignored. The stories in the press that come out about people who have the mental age of children being told they should be working and benefits removed, are written off as 'one time errors' and such, when they aren't, this is what ATOS is PAID to do. To get people off disability, regardless of if they actually need it or not.

So yeah, I may be hard pushed to find someone who would openly admit to thinking the disabled should starve and so on. However, people who support the WCA in its current form and support the government with things such as cuts to disability allowance, bedroom tax in its current form* (disproportionately affects disabled people who have no option to move as their homes are adapted)...do think this, though they would never say it out loud as they would be outed as the horrible bastards that they are.


*Not in general. Its obviously different if there are places for people to move to, which many think that there are. it IS shocking to penalize people for something they cannot change.

:clap1: I honestly think some people live in Narnia or Atlantis.

[DemolitionRed]

I don't see why those that worked hard at school and went on to higher education and well paid jobs should support those that pissed about and couldn't be bothered and hence ended up in low paid jobs. They are not their keepers.

OMG you sound like someone I know!

So when my kids come to me and say they don’t know how to find 100k deposit for a one bedroom flat, should I give them a substantial dollop of their own financial failings? Will they be expected to listen to their nan as she tells them it was just as hard in her day when she and grandad could only afford their three-bed starter home in Richmond because they were willing to sacrifice going to the cinema?

[Vicky.]

OMG you sound like someone I know!

So when my kids come to me and say they don’t know how to find 100k deposit for a one bedroom flat, should I give them a substantial dollop of their own financial failings? Will they be expected to listen to their nan as she tells them it was just as hard in her day when she and grandad could only afford their three-bed starter home in Richmond because they were willing to sacrifice going to the cinema?
Heh. I was arguing a few weeks back with someone about this. They were going on about how todays young simply aren't motivated enough and this is why they cannot afford to buy houses. Loads of 'back in my day' was said, and it turned out the persons opinion was that they gave up 'luxuries' and were able to buy their house in 2 years. They paid around a grand for their house but rightly pointed out that wages were much lower back then. I was kind of intrigued so asked a few questions, turned out that before moving into their bought house, she lived with her parents and her soon to be husband lived with his whilst saving. The 'luxuries' they gave up were things such as cinema visits, going to 'dances', going to the pub...basically what they saved on were trips out.

I asked what they earned at the time, and instead of telling me to piss off and mind my own business they told me between her and her partner they made 25 pounds a week. So 1300 a year ish.

So the house cost less than a years wages. Pretty much exactly a years wages for the to be husband, as he made 20 pound a week where she made 5.

So I used average house prices and average household incomes to make this point...£240,325 for average house cost and average household income £23,556. Obviously its clear where I am going with this...10x the average wage to buy a house. And thats the full income amount. Obviously people would still need to eat, and would have to rent a house in the meantime too as its very unusual to be able to live with your parents far past school age. So, average rent is apparently £921 a month. So around 11k per year. Leaving around 12k.

Say people spend 80 quid a week on shopping for 2 (as I had a hard job finding average shopping costs) thats 4k a year.

So now we have 8k. Lets assume that all of that 8k goes on 'treats' that can be cut out easily...rather than being sensible and acknowledging that there are more living costs than rent and food. So these 8k of treats are cut out. It would still take 30 years to buy a house with that.

It was just a ridiculous conversation really, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows that its much harder for todays young when it comes to things such as buying houses. And that so many of them, no matter how hard they work and how hard they save, will never own their own homes. I actually don't know anyone under the age of 40 who owns a house bar one person who inherited it when his parents died. I know only 2 people with mortgages...and LOADS who have been turned down for mortgages. Bar managing to get a mortgage, winning the lottery or inheriting, they have no chance realistically. But its still their fault for being lazy and unwilling to save. Save meaning, not go to the cinema for a year and so on...well its just a bit silly to assume cutting down on cinema trips would mean someone can buy a house :laugh: But so many older people STILL think this way.

Kinda offtopic but your post brought this back :D

[Brillopad]

Heh. I was arguing a few weeks back with someone about this. They were going on about how todays young simply aren't motivated enough and this is why they cannot afford to buy houses. Loads of 'back in my day' was said, and it turned out the persons opinion was that they gave up 'luxuries' and were able to buy their house in 2 years. They paid around a grand for their house but rightly pointed out that wages were much lower back then. I was kind of intrigued so asked a few questions, turned out that before moving into their bought house, she lived with her parents and her soon to be husband lived with his whilst saving. The 'luxuries' they gave up were things such as cinema visits, going to 'dances', going to the pub...basically what they saved on were trips out.

I asked what they earned at the time, and instead of telling me to piss off and mind my own business they told me between her and her partner they made 25 pounds a week. So 1300 a year ish.

So the house cost less than a years wages. Pretty much exactly a years wages for the to be husband, as he made 20 pound a week where she made 5.

So I used average house prices and average household incomes to make this point...£240,325 for average house cost and average household income £23,556. Obviously its clear where I am going with this...10x the average wage to buy a house. And thats the full income amount. Obviously people would still need to eat, and would have to rent a house in the meantime too as its very unusual to be able to live with your parents far past school age. So, average rent is apparently £921 a month. So around 11k per year. Leaving around 12k.

Say people spend 80 quid a week on shopping for 2 (as I had a hard job finding average shopping costs) thats 4k a year.

So now we have 8k. Lets assume that all of that 8k goes on 'treats' that can be cut out easily...rather than being sensible and acknowledging that there are more living costs than rent and food. So these 8k of treats are cut out. It would still take 30 years to buy a house with that.

It was just a ridiculous conversation really, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows that its much harder for todays young when it comes to things such as buying houses. And that so many of them, no matter how hard they work and how hard they save, will never own their own homes. I actually don't know anyone under the age of 40 who owns a house bar one person who inherited it when his parents died. I know only 2 people with mortgages...and LOADS who have been turned down for mortgages. Bar managing to get a mortgage, winning the lottery or inheriting, they have no chance realistically. But its still their fault for being lazy and unwilling to save. Save meaning, not go to the cinema for a year and so on...well its just a bit silly to assume cutting down on cinema trips would mean someone can buy a house :laugh: But so many older people STILL think this way.

Kinda offtopic but your post brought this back :D

You should have just closed it and had done with it. It's what you were trying to do anyway.

[Vicky.]

You should have just closed it and had done with it. It's what you were trying to do anyway.

Closed what?

[Brillopad]

Closed what?

A thread where all Corbyn threads were merged together despite being about different issues. It was just a way of closing down any criticism of Corbyn. The hard-left on here are too sensitive and controlling and inevitably get their way. Past caring anymore.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm like you Vicky, I just have to do the maths! Not only did they purchase a house for peanuts, they got rich just by owning that house and this is what people new to the property market can't-do anymore. When you try telling some mature homeowners that they get quite irate.

[waterhog]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/10/corbyn-labour-general-election-tories-win

Talk about count his chickens. Corbyn's ego defines him. He thinks he has it in the bag with all his bribery, at the taxpayers' expense - but so far he's all talk. To see that ego and all his huffing and puffing deflate would be interesting to say the least.

There's nothing like an old fool who is standing at the gates of the last chance saloon.

This hysterical 'hero worship' thing going on with some Labour voters reminds me of Christmas and the must have Christmas toy debacle - childish, desperate fads with a hidden agenda from those desperate to sell something. Works well on the young and naive.


great post brillo - I to do not have any faith in Jeremy. I will east my own words if he gets into power and is a success and does not crumble.

[Oliver_W]

I'm like you Vicky, I just have to do the maths! Not only did they purchase a house for peanuts, they got rich just by owning that house and this is what people new to the property market can't-do anymore. When you try telling some mature homeowners that they get quite irate.

Lucky them, hope they enjoy the fruits of it.

[smudgie]

Thank heavens we live up North.
My hairdressers daughter has just bought her own three bedroomed house, only about 2 year old house at that, also just bought her second brand new car, selling the first one of course, while she was on her fortnights holiday her parents decorated the house for her. She is a nurse, having fully qualified last year.
Both kids next door are buying houses up here as well, one with her boyfriend and the son on his own.
We have the pleasure of out son moving back home with us:fist:
Wasted his bloody money on clubbing and debt then couldn't afford his rent:shrug:
Swings and roundabouts, depends where you live, I can not imagine the horrors of trying to buy a house in London or many other places down South to be honest.

[JTM45]

First-time buyers used to be able to, and generally did, take their pick of small-ish terraced houses up in one of the Valleys near where i live (usually Maesteg or the Ogmore Valley/Nantymoel ) for a reasonable price. A mate of mine and his girlfriend bought one in decent, ready to move in condition in the early '90s for around £15 grand. You'd be looking at nearer £90 to £100 grand for the same type of property these days, and the further you wanted to buy from a Valley and nearer the main town (Bridgend), the more the prices rise. It's just out of reach for the vast majority of youngsters (and even 'not so youngsters') in the area these days, especially with the generally low wages in this area being what they are.

[user104658]

My parents bought the house I spent my teens in in 1996 for 70k, divorced and sold it in 2004 for 120k (split the money between them and both blew the lot, sigh), and it's now valued at well over 200k.

That was a detached house with three large double bedrooms, but that's in a small village in Scotland. House prices have absolutely soared in the last two decades, anyone who bought their first home pre-1995ish has absolutely no idea what getting on the housing ladder looks like these days.

Around here its not quite so bad for singles or young couples - you can grab a nice enough flat for around the 50 - 60k range - but nothing suitable for a family. If you want a house, even a two-bed semi detached or terraced, you're into the 100k+ bracket. For what I would call a realistically sized family home (3 bed semi detached house) you're pretty much out of luck if you can't stretch to £150k.

[Brillopad]

My parents bought the house I spent my teens in in 1996 for 70k, divorced and sold it in 2004 for 120k (split the money between them and both blew the lot, sigh), and it's now valued at well over 200k.

That was a detached house with three large double bedrooms, but that's in a small village in Scotland. House prices have absolutely soared in the last two decades, anyone who bought their first home pre-1995ish has absolutely no idea what getting on the housing ladder looks like these days.

Around here its not quite so bad for singles or young couples - you can grab a nice enough flat for around the 50 - 60k range - but nothing suitable for a family. If you want a house, even a two-bed semi detached or terraced, you're into the 100k+ bracket. For what I would call a realistically sized family home (3 bed semi detached house) you're pretty much out of luck if you can't stretch to £150k.

£150k isn't out of reach for most people surely. If you have working couples, with or or without children, that should be doable over a 25 year period which is the average for a mortgage.

My son has just bought a 5-bedroomed house and his wife is currently a stay at home mum with young children. He didn't go to uni but trained in communications, works hard, worked his way up, spent wisely and managed his credit well and now has a well paid job in London. He doesn't live in London but commutes. Neither was he born into priviledge, he just applied himself and worked hard.

[Kizzy]

Says the May/Tory bashing ****rag. The far-left equivalent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4652858/Editor-Canary-BOOED-Question-Time-audience.html

Ah, but has anything they have reported been proven to be so wrong as to be seen by the regulatory body as intentionally duplicitous?.... No.

Find me something...anything, which suggests they have.

[Brillopad]

Ah, but has anything they have reported been proven to be so wrong as to be seen by the regulatory body as intentionally duplicitous?.... No.

Find me something...anything, which suggests they have.

Pretty sure it has or twisted and slanted it out of all proportion.

[Kizzy]

£150k isn't out of reach for most people surely. If you have working couples, with or or without children, that should be doable over a 25 year period which is the average for a mortgage.

My son has just bought a 5-bedroomed house and his wife is currently a stay at home mum with young children. He didn't go to uni but trained in communications, works hard, worked his way up, spent wisely and managed his credit well and now has a well paid job in London. He doesn't live in London but commutes. Neither was he born into priviledge, he just applied himself and worked hard.

The average house price in Leeds is 195k so god knows what it is anywhere near the capital, how much is the commute out of interest? You of course have to knock that straight off his annual salary.

The lack of affordable childcare is causing his wife to be trapped in a cell of her own choosing? That's a sad tale, I feel for her.

[Kizzy]

Pretty sure it has or twisted and slanted it out of all proportion.

So nothing then? Thought not.

[Brillopad]

The average house price in Leeds is 195k so god knows what it is anywhere near the capital, how much is the commute out of interest? You of course have to knock that straight off his annual salary.

The lack of affordable childcare is causing his wife to be trapped in a cell of her own choosing? That's a sad tale, I feel for her.

The commute is largely covered by the company. Often he drives. But again the perks of working hard enough to get in with a good company.

[Kizzy]

The commute is largely covered by the company. Often he drives. But again the perks of working hard enough to get in with a good company.

So on average how long does it take for him to get to and from work? Then add the number of hours to his working week.

[user104658]

£150k isn't out of reach for most people surely. If you have working couples, with or or without children, that should be doable over a 25 year period which is the average for a mortgage.

My son has just bought a 5-bedroomed house and his wife is currently a stay at home mum with young children. He didn't go to uni but trained in communications, works hard, worked his way up, spent wisely and managed his credit well and now has a well paid job in London. He doesn't live in London but commutes. Neither was he born into priviledge, he just applied himself and worked hard.A couple with two people on full time just-over-min-wage will only get a mortgage for roughly £90k. To secure a 150k mortgage you need a pre-tax income of £47000 and repayments would be over £1000 a month.

Its not "out of reach" but I wasn't saying that it's out of reach, I was pointing out that it's a very, very different financial scenario than it was for people who are now 50+. Property prices increased dramatically and suddenly. And to say that it's no different for young people now than it was in the past is a straight up lie.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/2cofl3l.jpg

[Brillopad]

So on average how long does it take for him to get to and from work? Then add the number of hours to his working week.

Anywhere between about 3-5 hours/day. As I said he works hard , but that has paid off financially for him and his family.

[Kizzy]

Anywhere between about 3-5 hours/day. As I said he works hard , but that has paid off financially for him and his family.

so approx 20hr pw are unpaid excepting subsidised travel expenses? ( assuming he only works 9-5 mon-fri)

[Brillopad]

so approx 20hr pw are unpaid excepting subsidised travel expenses? ( assuming he only works 9-5 mon-fri)

He works all sorts of hours. But the point being nothing was given to him on a plate he had to work for it, something we should all expect to do. Unfortunately I don't think enough people think ahead and just live for the moment, which causes problems later.

[Vicky.]

A thread where all Corbyn threads were merged together despite being about different issues. It was just a way of closing down any criticism of Corbyn. The hard-left on here are too sensitive and controlling and inevitably get their way. Past caring anymore.

All Corbyn threads by the same person, and not even all were merged. There are still many that are left as single threads. Opinion pieces, really minor news stories, and threads that were basically the same subject, were merged.

And I did warn about this ages ago but it continued :shrug: I assure you if someone was making that many threads about May, starting new threads for random opinion pieces and that, the same would be done. Or even if the threads were positive, about either Corbyn or May...someone posting endless threads about them would also be merged.

And I don't see how a lot of your Corbyn threads being merged...has anything to do with the post you quoted to ask that? ( http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9632878#post9632878 )

Unless I am missing something here

[Brillopad]

All Corbyn threads by the same person, and not even all were merged. There are still many that are left as single threads. Opinion pieces, really minor news stories, and threads that were basically the same subject, were merged.

And I did warn about this ages ago but it continued :shrug: I assure you if someone was making that many threads about May, starting new threads for random opinion pieces and that, the same would be done. Or even if the threads were positive, about either Corbyn or May...someone posting endless threads about them would also be merged.

And I don't see how a lot of your Corbyn threads being merged...has anything to do with the post you quoted to ask that? ( http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9632878#post9632878 )

Unless I am missing something here

It seemed to me that putting all such threads in one long thread made it harder to find posts and therefore to read and respond. It did indeed lead to the end of many topics and felt like a pretty effective way of closing down certain subjects.

It also felt that your warnings came about as a result of the and groans of a handful of Corbyn supporters who didn't handle such criticism well. I can remember a lot of anti-May threads, but no-one merged those, effectively closing them down. Seemed a bit, well 'biased'.

[Vicky.]

OK fair enough, I guess we will have to agree to disagree in that case. I fail to see how it could be biased when the same would happen if someone made thread upon thread of positive Corbyn stuff that they got from opinion pieces, or that had no actual new news in them :shrug:

If I have somehow missed someone spamming negative May threads or something, please report...as I said when merging these ones. But I am fairly sure that there is not someone making multiple negative May threads or multiple positive Corbyn, or multiple anti-Brexit on a weekly basis... as I don't see how I could miss that.

[DemolitionRed]

He works all sorts of hours. But the point being nothing was given to him on a plate he had to work for it, something we should all expect to do. Unfortunately I don't think enough people think ahead and just live for the moment, which causes problems later.

You have to be really careful here because what you're saying could be seen as very offensive to parents whose kids have just grown up, got a job but not managed to progress into an area of making a lot of money.

I'm sure you are proud of your son and so you should be. I'm very proud of our eldest son and I hope the same success to our other children, one of whom started uni last week and is now suffering the effects of thresher week!

But working hard is working hard. We live in a world where we need menial workers, we need skilled workers and we need high-flying academics. None of those people hold less value than the other. We are all the cogs that make the big wheel turn. All workers deserve to be able to afford the simple necessities of life. Some people are happy not to progress beyond what they love doing because they don't want or need the extra pressure; some workers are good with their hands, others with their brains. Lack of progression doesn't mean they don't work hard. Progression isn't a must and for many people its an impossibility.

The son who has just started uni is taking a maths degree. Right now he's not sure what he's going to do with that degree. All he knows is, maths is something he enjoys. Perhaps he will be a future economist or a professor or maybe he will just be a school teacher earning very little money for his efforts. His chosen profession doesn't matter so long as he's happy but my question is... can he be happy working hard for a poor salary... will it even be possible for him to continue living in London? and should I, as his mother, be less proud of him if he's not financially successful?

Would it of mattered to you if your son hadn't been successful? If he'd had learning difficulties at school but still managed to get a menial job? Would you be worried about his future in a metropolis of unaffordability?

Lets not just think about our own because that traps our mindset. Think outside the box and try looking at the bigger picture.