pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 28, 2024 20:54:34 GMT
Well ad the person who wrote the posts you're wrong, do you believe me or are you saying I'm lying? It’s not my recollection NeilJ, though you may differ in your recollection. I did used to keep an eye on it though. I tracked various things, including number of posts per day, how many unique posters… at one point it got pretty low: only maybe 40 posts from 20 people etc., and when you only have that many posts, you don’t see many about Corbyn. Or anything much. It was mostly Brexit in those days anyway And what exactly did you do for Corbyn? By your own admission you did nothing to campaign for him and I think I might recollect you saying you didn't vote. Seem rather hypocritical to attack those that did both. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Nov 28, 2024 20:56:13 GMT
More transparent nonsense from the other side. As I said before, why on earth can’t he STFU??
EDIT: Oooops, sorry PJ, not you of course; your post just came between!!
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 28, 2024 21:05:52 GMT
It’s not my recollection NeilJ, though you may differ in your recollection. I did used to keep an eye on it though. I tracked various things, including number of posts per day, how many unique posters… at one point it got pretty low: only maybe 40 posts from 20 people etc., and when you only have that many posts, you don’t see many about Corbyn. Or anything much. It was mostly Brexit in those days anyway And what exactly did you do for Corbyn? By your own admission you did nothing to campaign for him and I think I might recollect you saying you didn't vote. Seem rather hypocritical to attack those that did both. Was a bit surprised but I’m not attacking anyone for it, or saying what they should do. People query my position on things too, I’m not campaigning and never said anyone should. Though I do find it interesting when people talk about it, and even suggested robot leafleters might help 📬🤖 |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by colin on Nov 28, 2024 21:16:30 GMT
Danny None of what the Tories did has anything to do with what Labour are going to do to reduce immigration legal or illegal . Starmer spent the entire time blaming the Tories which is what a Tory PM would have done if the rolls were reversed to be fair. Especially when you don’t have a clue what do about it. IAnd it’s possibly worth saying that in opposition we didn’t hear much if anything from Labour re immigration legal or illegal, infact there was a some push back when the Tories stopped students bring there relatives with them from the Labour benches. Alec as usual was trying to say that Starmer was putting forward some sort of plan to reduce immigration and how wonderful it’s going to be , however any sort of policy was something Starmer studiously avoided doing during his speech and Q&A session . Although to be fair he did at least spare us the smash tha gangs trope especially as illegal immigration has risen on his watch. I see you are upsetting the censorious liberals again turk ! |
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Nov 28, 2024 21:16:40 GMT
He was also racist, and also a kind of Trot. He was up against BJ though, not Lenin. So who would you prefer? BJ versus Corbyn - the public knew who they preferred. My guess is that they would still make the same choice if asked again today. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by colin on Nov 28, 2024 21:19:12 GMT
He was up against BJ though, not Lenin. So who would you prefer? BJ versus Corbyn - the public knew who they preferred. My guess is that they would still make the same choice if asked again today. Blimey-talk about Rock and Hard Place ! |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by colin on Nov 28, 2024 21:28:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 28, 2024 21:31:30 GMT
NeilJ: "Okay we're done here"I hope that's not as drastic as it sounds. You're one of a dwindling band of interesting posters. For what it's worth, a couple of weeks ago I'd finally had enough and blocked the two most tediously prolific, ego-massaging posters here. My experience of the site has been transformed; I heartily recommend the measure. I'm replying to test if one of them's me!  |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,555
|
Post by neilj on Nov 28, 2024 21:35:32 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,555
|
Post by neilj on Nov 28, 2024 21:36:45 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 28% (-1)
CON: 27% (=)
RFM: 18% (+1)
LDM: 13% (+1)
GRN: 6% (-1)
SNP: 2% (=)
Via Techne UK, 27-28 Nov.
Changes w/ 20-21 Nov.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 28, 2024 21:37:55 GMT
And I stress that's not intending to dig at mercian - he's heard several oft-quoted myths and nothing to refute them at the time. Not his fault, and he's far from alone. Hopefully he's had the chance to research a bit more and now realises that they are myths. Well thanks for that but they're not all myths although I do take your point that the situation is improving. The range thing is a biggie though, and especially the declining range with the age of the battery. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,555
|
Post by neilj on Nov 28, 2024 21:46:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 28, 2024 21:51:56 GMT
On those immigration figures, when net immigration is 50% higher than live births in the country surely something drastic must be done, not just pious words as we got from the Tories until their very late restrictions on students bringing dependents.
And total immigration was over a million of course. They are not all workers by any means, and even if they were a massive oversupply of labour will inevitably suppress wages even further.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 28, 2024 22:32:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 28, 2024 22:40:21 GMT
Worth resaying I think Re taxes, the reality is after 14 years of tory mismanagement the public sector is in a dire situation Schools and hospitals falling down due to neglect Public sector pay failed to keep pace with inflation making recruitment difficult Lack of investment in infrastructure, potholes etc Then there are growing demands on the health service due to a rapidly aging population, plus the increased pensions to go with that In reality there are only 2 ways to finance that, more taxation and or increased borrowing Labour has borrowed significantly more to invest in infrastructure, but if they borrow much more it may spook the money markets and so increase borrowing costs Then there's taxation, which someone has to pay. Few like paying it, we've seen that with removing VAT on private schools, farm inheritance tax, employers NIC, but someone has to pay up Yes you could take it directly from workers, but that would mean less money spent in the economy, similar to what is claimed over taxing employers more Of course increased taxes can help the economy. An employee can get that hospital treatment and so get back to work. A student can get a better education and so contribute more to the economy. The infrastructure projects that help our construction industry What I'm trying to say is there are no easy answers I agree with that and it's to their credit that Labour faced it head on where the Tories, and Hunt in particular, didn't. Maybe the markets wouldn't have stood for it and were simply waiting to see what the winners of the election were going to do. I just think the issue is whether those taxes (and cuts) were the best way of raising the money, so the 'ers NIC rise is kind of a tax on jobs and may suck the life out the economy. They may mostly get away with it and I understand the political problems but without politics getting in the way the obvious thing was to reverse the Tories 'Ees NIC cuts. We still don't have unearned income matched to earned income and I think a wealth tax was the best way to do it but admittedly no way of knowing what effect this might have had. At least sort out the council tax where the wealthy pay considerable more because if you have an expensive house the chances are you can afford to pay a massively increased council tax and nothing you can do about it. I guess we will find out in a year or so. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 28, 2024 22:50:04 GMT
He was up against BJ though, not Lenin. So who would you prefer? BJ versus Corbyn - the public knew who they preferred. My guess is that they would still make the same choice if asked again today. Knowing what they Know about Johnson now? Whilst i thought Corbyn was not up to being PM. history has proved Johnson wasn't. Do you still prefer him despite the Lying and Incompetence? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Nov 29, 2024 0:13:09 GMT
BJ versus Corbyn - the public knew who they preferred. My guess is that they would still make the same choice if asked again today. Knowing what they Know about Johnson now? Whilst i thought Corbyn was not up to being PM. history has proved Johnson wasn't. Do you still prefer him despite the Lying and Incompetence? It's a bit like saying some would still vote for Hitler over Bruning. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 29, 2024 0:14:24 GMT
Worth resaying I think Re taxes, the reality is after 14 years of tory mismanagement the public sector is in a dire situation Schools and hospitals falling down due to neglect Public sector pay failed to keep pace with inflation making recruitment difficult Lack of investment in infrastructure, potholes etc Then there are growing demands on the health service due to a rapidly aging population, plus the increased pensions to go with that In reality there are only 2 ways to finance that, more taxation and or increased borrowing Labour has borrowed significantly more to invest in infrastructure, but if they borrow much more it may spook the money markets and so increase borrowing costs Then there's taxation, which someone has to pay. Few like paying it, we've seen that with removing VAT on private schools, farm inheritance tax, employers NIC, but someone has to pay up Yes you could take it directly from workers, but that would mean less money spent in the economy, similar to what is claimed over taxing employers more Of course increased taxes can help the economy. An employee can get that hospital treatment and so get back to work. A student can get a better education and so contribute more to the economy. The infrastructure projects that help our construction industry What I'm trying to say is there are no easy answers I agree with that and it's to their credit that Labour faced it head on where the Tories, and Hunt in particular, didn't. Maybe the markets wouldn't have stood for it and were simply waiting to see what the winners of the election were going to do. I just think the issue is whether those taxes (and cuts) were the best way of raising the money, so the 'ers NIC rise is kind of a tax on jobs and may suck the life out the economy. They may mostly get away with it and I understand the political problems but without politics getting in the way the obvious thing was to reverse the Tories 'Ees NIC cuts. We still don't have unearned income matched to earned income and I think a wealth tax was the best way to do it but admittedly no way of knowing what effect this might have had. At least sort out the council tax where the wealthy pay considerable more because if you have an expensive house the chances are you can afford to pay a massively increased council tax and nothing you can do about it. I guess we will find out in a year or so. Interesting stuff on here today. I was always of the opinion that Corbyn was no good as a leader. But i liked the radicalness (relatively) of the policy platform he represented. It was popular with me and I remember (for once) a vox pop in somewhere like Tunbridge Wells where a string of tories gave likes to leftish Corbyn ideas before they knew it was his policy. Whatever I thought of Corbyn I was out regularly at every election (and referendum) doing my best to get him and Labour policy to prevail. By contrast, I think Starmer is credible as a manager, though his lack of visible passion is a major shortcoming. He has also made some poor choices on policy EG taxes where I share shevii 's comments. I fundamentally believe we are ripe for a large raft of fiscal reforms (CGT rate and less exemptions, limit to level of exemption on private homes, limit in ISAs and higher tax on unearned income, probably a land value tax and a wealth tax, reformed council tax and more on high value properties, increase in council rents part balanced by higher subsidy, NHI merged with income tax ( why do I not pay NHI as I'm old, and nor does my employer?) and income rax reduced at low. middle levels. There is a lot of craziness in our system and nobody seems to have the balls to address any of it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2024 5:38:24 GMT
That isnt an odd situation for investment commodities. Company shares tend to have low dividends because profit comes from appreciating share value. Ditto house prices, and now land value. All very bad news for genuine farmers priced out of their own industry by speculators. To fix that we need to make trading in land uneconomic with bigger taxes not smaler. So increased stamp duty on land, restrictions on foreign or trust ownership, inheritance tax, and possibly a development tax if it gets turned into buildings. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2024 5:50:39 GMT
BJ versus Corbyn - the public knew who they preferred. My guess is that they would still make the same choice if asked again today. Knowing what they Know about Johnson now? Whilst i thought Corbyn was not up to being PM. history has proved Johnson wasn't. Do you still prefer him despite the Lying and Incompetence? I'm amazed how people here can so glibly ignore the truth of what happened in 2019. Johnson won solely because he promised brexit NOW. If they had both been standing still in 2024 my guess is identical results to what did happen, strong labour win. Obviously thats complicated by events and assumes both parties hadnt chosen to tear down their own leader, but the core point is johnson only won because voters wanted brexit. Today they dont, so with todays electorate and the benefit of hindsight, id have predicted a corbyn win. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 29, 2024 6:33:00 GMT
mercian - "On those immigration figures, when net immigration is 50% higher than live births in the country surely something drastic must be done, not just pious words as we got from the Tories until their very late restrictions on students bringing dependents." Unlike you, I couldn't give a fig about the proportion of migrants to births in the UK population mix, but I think we share a deep concern over the truly massive scale of immigration. As I said yesterday, in two years, net migration added a population equivalent to the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol and Coventry combined. There was little comment on this at all, which I suspect is because the RoC posters are embarrassed that their lot screwed up so badly, while the LoC posters are uncomfortable trying to defend such horrendous levels of migration but don't want to break the rule about not criticising immigration because of the ingrained cultural assumption that to question it makes you a fruitcake, loon or racist. It's a huge story but was barely touched here yesterday.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2024 6:33:08 GMT
Glad you agree, 24 years of tory mismanagement will take a lot to put right What worries me is that we'll see a repeat in the future. Labour will again get the public services to an acceptable standard. Then the tories will promise big tax cuts, get in and decimate them again. As last time they'll cut the low hanging fruit, such as infrastructure maintenance. Thing is you can get away with that for a few years, but anyone who fails to regularly maintain their own property knows it costs more in the long term. Falling down schools and hospitals, potholes etc Thats not a problem, its a feature. The idea is one party has a core policy of cutting government spending. It can only do that if the other party has increased government spending to above the bare minimum. The other party has a policy of increasing government spending. It can only do that if the first party has reduced it to the bare minimum. See, its a feature which enables both parties to share time in government while pretending they are opponents. Its part of the system which keeps them in office as a duopoly and excludes new parties. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,748
|
Post by steve on Nov 29, 2024 6:38:16 GMT
On the subject of myths in the U.S. there's a conceit primarily among the mags right but it extends into more sane groups that some how firearms make you safer from attack.
There are of course more firearms in circulation in the U.S. than the entire population and around 1 in 5 adults possess 1 or more firearms,sometimes many more.
Deranged congress member Marjorie Taylor Green was responding to a question from a British journalist about firearms deaths and responded that the UK has mass knife murders at similar levels and that Americans " loved their guns"
Putting aside that 80% of U.S. adults don't possess firearms .
MGT reality alert
UK 244 knife deaths out of a total of 580 last year US 19000 gun homicides out of a total of 25,000,
The UK has had eight murders with more than three victims last year the U.S. had 743
Off you toddle you psychotic loon
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,555
|
Post by neilj on Nov 29, 2024 6:47:50 GMT
Assisted dying vote today
I just wish people would be honest, don't want to pick on Tim Farron, but he's representative of a larger group who say the Bill is rushed with not enough debate or safeguards so they can't vote for it
Be honest Tim and many of the others, we could debate this or a hundred years and put in every possible safeguard and you still wouldn't vote for it
Just come out and say you would never vote for it on principle, which is a valid reason, instead of this obfuscation
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 29, 2024 6:51:50 GMT
Breaking (source Telegraph)
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh resigns after admitting she pleaded guilty to misleading police
In a letter to Keir Starmer, Ms Haigh said she was ‘sorry to leave’ but the issue would ‘inevitably be a distraction’ for the government
Edit: Sums it up.
|
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by colin on Nov 29, 2024 6:52:06 GMT
I didnt know he had that connection. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by colin on Nov 29, 2024 7:09:24 GMT
Breaking (source Telegraph) Transport Secretary Louise Haigh resigns after admitting she pleaded guilty to misleading police In a letter to Keir Starmer, Ms Haigh said she was ‘sorry to leave’ but the issue would ‘inevitably be a distraction’ for the government Edit: Sums it up. Not a favourite of mine, but if the BBC report is to be believed this is not a resigning offence. Mugged as a young woman & mistaken about a stolen phone ? ! www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxy1kp73y9oWhy did Starmer not refuse her resignation and support her ? Maybe he asked her to go ? |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 29, 2024 7:10:43 GMT
mercian - "On those immigration figures, when net immigration is 50% higher than live births in the country surely something drastic must be done, not just pious words as we got from the Tories until their very late restrictions on students bringing dependents." Unlike you, I couldn't give a fig about the proportion of migrants to births in the UK population mix, but I think we share a deep concern over the truly massive scale of immigration. As I said yesterday, in two years, net migration added a population equivalent to the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol and Coventry combined. There was little comment on this at all, which I suspect is because the RoC posters are embarrassed that their lot screwed up so badly, while the LoC posters are uncomfortable trying to defend such horrendous levels of migration but don't want to break the rule about not criticising immigration because of the ingrained cultural assumption that to question it makes you a fruitcake, loon or racist. It's a huge story but was barely touched here yesterday. The UK remains well on course to overtake Germany in terms of population in the next 25 years. I think the bigger question is what immigration looks like in terms of skills and aptitude. Being in or out if the EU is a minor issue, but you can see why the EU wants to be part of this growth in terms of youth mobility. Having a Government that actually will invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the levels of population growth is a relief rather than a Government that had been running things into the ground for 14 years. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,748
|
Post by steve on Nov 29, 2024 7:16:30 GMT
colin Ms Haigh is correct the Tory supporting media would no doubt have made a huge song and dance about it if she stayed. As a matter of fact the sentence imposed one of absolute discharge is the minimum that can be awarded by U.K. courts, the court technically finds the defendant guilty but discharges them from court with no punishment or conditions. As such her penalty was less severe than the fines handed down to both Spaffer Johnson and Sunak committed while they were prime minister and chancellor.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,555
|
Post by neilj on Nov 29, 2024 7:17:24 GMT
mercian - "On those immigration figures, when net immigration is 50% higher than live births in the country surely something drastic must be done, not just pious words as we got from the Tories until their very late restrictions on students bringing dependents." Unlike you, I couldn't give a fig about the proportion of migrants to births in the UK population mix, but I think we share a deep concern over the truly massive scale of immigration. As I said yesterday, in two years, net migration added a population equivalent to the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol and Coventry combined. There was little comment on this at all, which I suspect is because the RoC posters are embarrassed that their lot screwed up so badly, while the LoC posters are uncomfortable trying to defend such horrendous levels of migration but don't want to break the rule about not criticising immigration because of the ingrained cultural assumption that to question it makes you a fruitcake, loon or racist. It's a huge story but was barely touched here yesterday. I think I was the first to post the figures on here, am also surprised there wasn't more debate I think it's a complex problem and the immigration figures can't be viewed on their own We have a rapidly declining birth rate and at the other end a growing pensioner population If we don't have substantial numbers of immigrants we need to address that. There will need to be much higher taxes and probably raising the pension age. But I’m very sure either, let alone both these measures, will be unpopular and can't see any Government doing it Alternatively we have immigration, probably not at the current level, but still in the hundreds of thousands on short term work visas (3-5 years at a time) to get us over the hump of our aging population. Coupled with this increased mechanisation to improve productivity In 20 years or so as the baby boomer generation dies out the demographic problem becomes less |
|
