|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 2, 2019 19:45:07 GMT 1
You are obviously much too well off as you are supporting the Tories. When are you leaving the UK? Working class and proud mate. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder like some. Nothing to do with chips on shoulders, it's an objection to an economic system that allows the distribution of wealth to be skewed so unfairly. People shouldn't be sleeping on the streets, while others stash away more money than they will ever need in this lifetime or the next. If your response to objections to such blatant social injustice is 'you're just jealous', then I despair.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Nov 2, 2019 21:48:29 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Valerioch on Nov 2, 2019 21:48:29 GMT 1
You are obviously much too well off as you are supporting the Tories. When are you leaving the UK? Working class and proud mate. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder like some. Amen to that Corbyns tweet yesterday about billionaires is utterly bizarre. The Majority of the electorate will not agree with that rubbish. He’s been well shut down by high profile figures luckily
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 2, 2019 21:58:14 GMT 1
Nice to see the Labour party (almost) make the point that billionaires are a policy failure.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 2, 2019 22:45:39 GMT 1
Can't be arsed rebutting all those half-assed Corbyn slurs again, so here's one I made (much) earlier... This is a bit odd. You’re making certain assumptions about Corbyn’s views and behaviours and have decided that he’s not a supporter of terrorism. But why not just find out? The facts are in the public domain and not hard to find. There isn’t some evil plot to smear him. Have a look here to start with. (Scroll down past the video). This article’s by the left wing journalist Nick Cohen but if you object to the publication (The Spectator), I’m sure you can check the original sources fairly easily. Down the years, and not that long ago in some cases, Jeremy Corbyn has supported some despicable, violent people and causes. By all means decide that you don’t care, or that you forgive him, but there’s no excuse for pretending it’s not true. There's no 'pretending' the cr@p in that piece by Pro-Iraq war Blairite journalist Nick Cohen, isn't true. It simply isn't. Cohen writes: "By aligning with terrorists. Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board of the hard-left journal Labour Briefing which supported IRA violence and explicitly backed the Brighton Hotel Bombing, which killed 5 people and maimed 31 others."Except he wasn't: And Cohen writes: " during the 1980s and 1990s, Jeremy Corbyn supported the IRA and opposed the Northern Ireland peace process."But as Channel 4's Fact Check reported: We think people are getting confused between the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which Corbyn voted and spoke against, and the Good Friday Agreement.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed by the British government of Margaret Thatcher and her Irish counterpart Garret Fitzgerald in 1985, and is seen by some as an important stepping-stone in the peace process.
But at the time, the treaty was opposed by many unionists as well as Sinn Fein and the IRA, and it failed to stop paramilitary violence in the province.
Corbyn voted against it and spoke against it in parliament, saying: “We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.”
The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 was a deal involving London, Dublin and most Northern Ireland parties including Sinn Fein and unionist parties also linked to paramilitary groups.
It had a much more dramatic effect on reducing violence and is considered by many to mark the effective end of the Troubles.
Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the agreement and along with the vast majority of MPs in Westminster, he endorsed it by voting for the Northern Ireland Bill in July 1998, saying: “We look forward to peace, hope and reconciliation in Ireland in the future.” In his piece, Cohen claims Corbyn has repeatedly refused to condemn IRA violence. Yet, as the Independent reported, Corbyn signed a motion condemning IRA violence in 1994: Jeremy Corbyn signed a motion in the House of Commons that condemned IRA violence and "extended its sympathy to the relatives of those murdered".
The Leader of the Labour Party supported an early day motion put forward by Labour MP David Winnick to commemorate the victims of the IRA bombing in Birmingham in 1974.
The motion was tabled on the 20 year anniversary of the attack that killed 21 people and injured 182 others and was signed by Mr Corbyn in November 1994. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-ira-violence-1994-general-election-a7761801.htmlTo be fair to Cohen, he had probably been on the sauce again when he wrote that piece. Cohen, ladies and gentlemen...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GE 2019
Nov 3, 2019 9:46:36 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 9:46:36 GMT 1
Can't be arsed rebutting all those half-assed Corbyn slurs again, so here's one I made (much) earlier... There's no 'pretending' the cr@p in that piece by Pro-Iraq war Blairite journalist Nick Cohen, isn't true. It simply isn't. Cohen writes: "By aligning with terrorists. Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board of the hard-left journal Labour Briefing which supported IRA violence and explicitly backed the Brighton Hotel Bombing, which killed 5 people and maimed 31 others."Except he wasn't: And Cohen writes: " during the 1980s and 1990s, Jeremy Corbyn supported the IRA and opposed the Northern Ireland peace process."But as Channel 4's Fact Check reported: We think people are getting confused between the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which Corbyn voted and spoke against, and the Good Friday Agreement.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed by the British government of Margaret Thatcher and her Irish counterpart Garret Fitzgerald in 1985, and is seen by some as an important stepping-stone in the peace process.
But at the time, the treaty was opposed by many unionists as well as Sinn Fein and the IRA, and it failed to stop paramilitary violence in the province.
Corbyn voted against it and spoke against it in parliament, saying: “We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.”
The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 was a deal involving London, Dublin and most Northern Ireland parties including Sinn Fein and unionist parties also linked to paramilitary groups.
It had a much more dramatic effect on reducing violence and is considered by many to mark the effective end of the Troubles.
Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the agreement and along with the vast majority of MPs in Westminster, he endorsed it by voting for the Northern Ireland Bill in July 1998, saying: “We look forward to peace, hope and reconciliation in Ireland in the future.” In his piece, Cohen claims Corbyn has repeatedly refused to condemn IRA violence. Yet, as the Independent reported, Corbyn signed a motion condemning IRA violence in 1994: Jeremy Corbyn signed a motion in the House of Commons that condemned IRA violence and "extended its sympathy to the relatives of those murdered".
The Leader of the Labour Party supported an early day motion put forward by Labour MP David Winnick to commemorate the victims of the IRA bombing in Birmingham in 1974.
The motion was tabled on the 20 year anniversary of the attack that killed 21 people and injured 182 others and was signed by Mr Corbyn in November 1994. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-ira-violence-1994-general-election-a7761801.htmlTo be fair to Cohen, he had probably been on the sauce again when he wrote that piece. Cohen, ladies and gentlemen...Good stuff, but you're wasting your time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 10:26:01 GMT 1
Working class and proud mate. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder like some. Amen to that Corbyns tweet yesterday about billionaires is utterly bizarre. The Majority of the electorate will not agree with that rubbish. He’s been well shut down by high profile figures luckily Indeed. People's billionaire hero Mike Ashley has really put him in his place. Glad that good people as billionaire Mike are looking out for the homeless and poor the way he does.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 10:31:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Nov 3, 2019 10:32:44 GMT 1
Amen to that Corbyns tweet yesterday about billionaires is utterly bizarre. The Majority of the electorate will not agree with that rubbish. He’s been well shut down by high profile figures luckily Indeed. People's billionaire hero Mike Ashley has really put him in his place. Glad that good people as billionaire Mike are looking out for the homeless and poor the way he does. People like Mike Ashley shouldn’t be punished for having the audacity to make a success of their lives, and working damn hard for it to build from nothing. He’s worked hard for his money, he can do as he pleases with it
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Nov 3, 2019 10:38:20 GMT 1
If Dominic Grieve’s allegations are true then its Russian billionaires controlling the elections rather than our home grown cuddly capitalists like Mike Ashley
|
|
|
GE 2019
Nov 3, 2019 10:39:28 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by martinshrew on Nov 3, 2019 10:39:28 GMT 1
Indeed. People's billionaire hero Mike Ashley has really put him in his place. Glad that good people as billionaire Mike are looking out for the homeless and poor the way he does. People like Mike Ashley shouldn’t be punished for having the audacity to make a success of their lives, and working damn hard for it to build from nothing. He’s worked hard for his money, he can do as he pleases with it I'm really on board with this, I hate the countries obsession with excessively over-taxing people who've made a real financial success of their lives. Labour actively detest anyone who has done well for themselves and would secretly love nothing more than to tax them 60% and take huge proportions of their wealth away from their loved ones when they pass away in inheritance tax.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 10:39:33 GMT 1
Labour up 6% in the latest polls, Lib Dems falling back, Farage running amok with the 'not true Brexit' narrative.
Could end up with a very interesting result - perhaps a hung parliament.
Then we'll see what the Lib Dems are really made of.
My guess is they'd spurn the second referendum offered by Labour - despite spending the last three years demanding it - to get in bed with the Tories.
Probably to the tune of some 'miserable little compromise' a'labthe AC vote.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Nov 3, 2019 10:41:17 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by martinshrew on Nov 3, 2019 10:41:17 GMT 1
Labour up 6% in the latest polls, Lib Dems falling back, Farage running amok with the 'not true Brexit' narrative. Could end up with a very interesting result - perhaps a hung parliament. Then we'll see what the Lib Dems are really made of. My guess is they'd spurn the second referendum offered by Labour - despite spending the last three years demanding it - to get in bed with the Tories. Probably to the tune of some 'miserable little compromise' a'labthe AC vote. We'll get to see the real Nigel now. Does he want Brexit? If so, place candidates tactically and don't fight Tory seats, simple. The far left will be voting tactically.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 10:45:01 GMT 1
Literally unbelievable that in a country where so many face such hardship you have working class people bleating 'won't someone think about the billionaires'.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 10:45:39 GMT 1
Labour up 6% in the latest polls, Lib Dems falling back, Farage running amok with the 'not true Brexit' narrative. Could end up with a very interesting result - perhaps a hung parliament. Then we'll see what the Lib Dems are really made of. My guess is they'd spurn the second referendum offered by Labour - despite spending the last three years demanding it - to get in bed with the Tories. Probably to the tune of some 'miserable little compromise' a'labthe AC vote. We'll get to see the real Nigel now. Does he want Brexit? If so, place candidates tactically and don't fight Tory seats, simple. The far left will be voting tactically. The 'far left'? 😂
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 3, 2019 10:55:24 GMT 1
Labour up 6% in the latest polls, Lib Dems falling back, Farage running amok with the 'not true Brexit' narrative. Could end up with a very interesting result - perhaps a hung parliament. Then we'll see what the Lib Dems are really made of. My guess is they'd spurn the second referendum offered by Labour - despite spending the last three years demanding it - to get in bed with the Tories. Probably to the tune of some 'miserable little compromise' a'labthe AC vote. and Cummings' solution to this? Throw billions at welfare benefits and state pensions. A naked bribe to the electorate.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 3, 2019 11:08:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 3, 2019 11:42:30 GMT 1
Labour up 6% in the latest polls, Lib Dems falling back, Farage running amok with the 'not true Brexit' narrative. Could end up with a very interesting result - perhaps a hung parliament. Then we'll see what the Lib Dems are really made of. My guess is they'd spurn the second referendum offered by Labour - despite spending the last three years demanding it - to get in bed with the Tories. Probably to the tune of some 'miserable little compromise' a'labthe AC vote. and Cummings' solution to this? Throw billions at welfare benefits and state pensions. A naked bribe to the electorate. Is that true? Or is Cumming's solution to make empty promises to throw billions at welfare benefits and state pensions? As for the promise, all I can see is 1.7% in 2020. Meanwhile keep struggling to make ends meet and dream of being rich beyond your wildest dreams with a 1.7% increase next year.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 12:14:36 GMT 1
People like Mike Ashley shouldn’t be punished for having the audacity to make a success of their lives, and working damn hard for it to build from nothing. He’s worked hard for his money, he can do as he pleases with it I'm really on board with this, I hate the countries obsession with excessively over-taxing people who've made a real financial success of their lives. Labour actively detest anyone who has done well for themselves and would secretly love nothing more than to tax them 60% and take huge proportions of their wealth away from their loved ones when they pass away in inheritance tax. Where do you get that 60% of income tax figure from? Let's not forget it's the thousands of low-paid workers - many on zero hours contracts - whose work generates Ashley's wealth. The idea that the harder you work, the richer you get is for the birds. There are hundreds of thousands of hard-working people who don't have a pot to p**s in, and are then vilified for claiming benefits to top up their income.
|
|
|
Post by WATR on Nov 3, 2019 12:17:59 GMT 1
Ashley's wealth is built off the surplus value of workers he pays too little to make ends meet. The government then has to top up their earning with tax-credits just to ensure they have enough to get by. Capitalism fails on its own terms.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 3, 2019 12:19:25 GMT 1
I'm really on board with this, I hate the countries obsession with excessively over-taxing people who've made a real financial success of their lives. Labour actively detest anyone who has done well for themselves and would secretly love nothing more than to tax them 60% and take huge proportions of their wealth away from their loved ones when they pass away in inheritance tax. Where do you get that 60% of income tax figure from? Let's not forget it's the thousands of low-paid workers - many on zero hours contracts - whose work generates Ashley's wealth. The idea that the harder you work, the richer you get is for the birds. There are hundreds of thousands of hard-working people who don't have a pot to p**s in, and are then vilified for claiming benefits to top up their income. Have the Tories explained where the cash is coming from to fund their vote winning spending announcements?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 13:33:19 GMT 1
Ashley's wealth is built off the surplus value of workers he pays too little to make ends meet. The government then has to top up their earning with tax-credits just to ensure they have enough to get by. Capitalism fails on its own terms. Spot on! Working benefits are essentially a subsidy to companies that allows them to pay s**t wages whilst also paying big bonuses and dividends to shareholders. By all means pay dividends and big money to your CEO’s, but not at the tax payers expense.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Nov 3, 2019 13:37:30 GMT 1
Labour up 6% in the latest polls, Lib Dems falling back, Farage running amok with the 'not true Brexit' narrative. Could end up with a very interesting result - perhaps a hung parliament. Then we'll see what the Lib Dems are really made of. My guess is they'd spurn the second referendum offered by Labour - despite spending the last three years demanding it - to get in bed with the Tories. Probably to the tune of some 'miserable little compromise' a'labthe AC vote. and Cummings' solution to this? Throw billions at welfare benefits and state pensions. A naked bribe to the electorate. To be fair, the wellfare freeze was always slated to end in 2020. Conservatives certainly are selling it as an act of largesse though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 14:32:52 GMT 1
Ashley's wealth is built off the surplus value of workers he pays too little to make ends meet. The government then has to top up their earning with tax-credits just to ensure they have enough to get by. Capitalism fails on its own terms. Spot on! Working benefits are essentially a subsidy to companies that allows them to pay s**t wages whilst also paying big bonuses and dividends to shareholders. By all means pay dividends and big money to your CEO’s, but not at the tax payers expense. Let's not forget Housing Benefit, that can subsidise private landlords.
|
|
|
GE 2019
Nov 3, 2019 14:41:35 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 14:41:35 GMT 1
and Cummings' solution to this? Throw billions at welfare benefits and state pensions. A naked bribe to the electorate. To be fair, the wellfare freeze was always slated to end in 2020. Conservatives certainly are selling it as an act of largesse though. And as a new policy announcement!
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Nov 3, 2019 15:51:41 GMT 1
The Tory stock answer to anything Labour comes up with is “the sums don’t add up”. They come out with it, seconds after anything is announced, regardless of whether they’ve had a chance to look at it. Just wait and see how many times they trot it out before 12 December.
Equally their response to accusations of funding cuts is “ we are spending record amounts on ......”. This maybe technically true but only due to a rising population and inflation. When you look at spending per head on education/NHS/social care, it’s certainly not true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 15:59:14 GMT 1
The right and their bootlickers insistance on protecting the billionaire class is most amusing particularly when as capitalists they should see any billionaire as a spectacular failure of capitalism and the inefficiency of markets.
After all the entire basis of the capitalist system is the belief in the invisible hand and market forces. If the market is broken then capitalism is doomed to fail.
They seem somewhat ambivalent towards say for instance Mike Ashley now controlling a vast swathe of the remaining high Street. They also seem ambivalent towards the nations utilities now being effectively controlled by foreign billionaires (in most cases countries).
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Nov 3, 2019 16:03:30 GMT 1
The right and their bootlickers insistance on protecting the billionaire class is most amusing particularly when as capitalists they should see any billionaire as a spectacular failure of capitalism and the inefficiency of markets. After all the entire basis of the capitalist system is the belief in the invisible hand and market forces. If the market is broken then capitalism is doomed to fail. They seem somewhat ambivalent towards say for instance Mike Ashley now controlling a vast swathe of the remaining high Street. They also seem ambivalent towards the nations utilities now being effectively controlled by foreign billionaires (in most cases countries). Yes, apparently state control is fine - as long as it's not our state. And they call themselves patriots!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2019 16:44:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 3, 2019 16:48:44 GMT 1
I'm really on board with this, I hate the countries obsession with excessively over-taxing people who've made a real financial success of their lives. Labour actively detest anyone who has done well for themselves and would secretly love nothing more than to tax them 60% and take huge proportions of their wealth away from their loved ones when they pass away in inheritance tax. Where do you get that 60% of income tax figure from? It's so secret that Labour don't even know themselves about secretly wanting to tax the rich at 60% As for inheritance tax, that's regarded as optional amongst the really wealthy who can engage inheritance tax planners and stash money away in pension plans and such. It's the marginal tax payers who get screwed for massive marginal tax rates and can't afford to employ the best financial advisors. The people who lose their house to pay for their care package, the people who have made a modest financial success of their lives, those sort of people that I am on board with.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Nov 3, 2019 17:00:20 GMT 1
Literally unbelievable that in a country where so many face such hardship you have working class people bleating 'won't someone think about the billionaires'. This is where we get the Tory boys coming on here saying that Labour are against aspiration and won't reward hard work. Well I've worked hard since I left school in 1981 and am just the right side of managing. If I had worked 12 hour days for every day since then at the current minimum wage and not spent a single penny I might be a millionaire. Does every billionaire work those hours and a thousand times harder than I do?
|
|