RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Oh, you wouldn't have heard of it. It's very niche, very indie {pushes black rimmed glasses up nose and adjust checked shirt}

Puja

The Vegan Times?

Well, not anymore. Not now it's sold out, gone mainstream, and let *you* hear about it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Oh, you wouldn't have heard of it. It's very niche, very indie {pushes black rimmed glasses up nose and adjust checked shirt}

Puja

The Vegan Times?

Well, not anymore. Not now it's sold out, gone mainstream, and let *you* hear about it.

Puja

Whoops. Has Tory Boy just blown their entire business model.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Do you watch ITV other than when the rugby is on? And I'm not counting ITV4 and your favorite reruns of Poirot!

Let's just say the broadcasting lends itself to a certain group of people, people who are more likely to respond to populism.

That was one of my problems. Her comment about "magic money trees", that Corbyn must have a whole forest of them, was dangerous and not the kind of thing the broadcaster should be saying. ITV should come under a lot of flack for that.

There was also nowhere near enough pressing on trust and honesty.

God, I'd love to see the leaders interviewed by Paxman. Boris would be wriggling like a fucking worm.

No questions on Arcuri - and Johnson was given more chances to ask Corbyn questions than the other way round. Then, when Corbyn finally got chance, he wasted it.

When you're working against a biased media, you need to take every chance you get, and this Labour spin team seem incapable of actually bloody spinning! Useless.

lol. I only asked

(no I don't watch ITV, ever. But there are a lot of Corrie fans oop north )

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Do you watch ITV other than when the rugby is on? And I'm not counting ITV4 and your favorite reruns of Poirot!

Let's just say the broadcasting lends itself to a certain group of people, people who are more likely to respond to populism.

That was one of my problems. Her comment about "magic money trees", that Corbyn must have a whole forest of them, was dangerous and not the kind of thing the broadcaster should be saying. ITV should come under a lot of flack for that.

There was also nowhere near enough pressing on trust and honesty.

God, I'd love to see the leaders interviewed by Paxman. Boris would be wriggling like a fucking worm.

No questions on Arcuri - and Johnson was given more chances to ask Corbyn questions than the other way round. Then, when Corbyn finally got chance, he wasted it.

When you're working against a biased media, you need to take every chance you get, and this Labour spin team seem incapable of actually bloody spinning! Useless.

lol. I only asked

(no I don't watch ITV, ever. But there are a lot of Corrie fans oop north )

Would be interesting to see voting intention of people who watch different shows. Corrie, bake off, c4 news, etc.

Has anyone had a proper look at the manifestos?

Stom wrote:Has anyone had a proper look at the manifestos?

Dunno by I suspect polenty have had a good look at the tory's fake labour manifesto: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 12076.html

It's good that their on the lookout for truth this campaign, and are fully against any form of untruth, like the fake fact-checking feed etc.

Mind you, they're still very much against "the things I said 6 months ago"

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:Has anyone had a proper look at the manifestos?

Dunno by I suspect polenty have had a good look at the tory's fake labour manifesto: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 12076.html

It's good that their on the lookout for truth this campaign, and are fully against any form of untruth, like the fake fact-checking feed etc.

Mind you, they're still very much against "the things I said 6 months ago"

This fake website thing by the Tories is astounding. Have they completely lost the plot? What do they think any undecided voter is going to think of them now?

That's the who do you trust? question settled.

- No mention of this on the BBC. More bias?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:Has anyone had a proper look at the manifestos?

Dunno by I suspect polenty have had a good look at the tory's fake labour manifesto: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 12076.html

It's good that their on the lookout for truth this campaign, and are fully against any form of untruth, like the fake fact-checking feed etc.

Mind you, they're still very much against "the things I said 6 months ago"

This fake website thing by the Tories is astounding. Have they completely lost the plot? What do they think any undecided voter is going to think of them now?

That's the who do you trust? question settled.

- No mention of this on the BBC. More bias?

It's on the BBC - that's where I found out about it.

Puja

I know Rachel Riley cops a fair bit of undeserved abuse (or, ,ore likely, deserved abuse that goes way beyond what's deserved) - but she fully deserves abuse for this stunt: https://www.indy100.com/article/rachel- ... sm-9211821.

Deserves to be sacked for this one - objecting to her workplace hosting a political debate and including Corbyn. Had she kept it personal, then she'd simply deserve abuse (preferably from Jimmy Carr); as it is, she brought her work into it, and objects to their political neutrality; and that is surely sackable.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Dunno by I suspect polenty have had a good look at the tory's fake labour manifesto: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 12076.html

It's good that their on the lookout for truth this campaign, and are fully against any form of untruth, like the fake fact-checking feed etc.

Mind you, they're still very much against "the things I said 6 months ago"

This fake website thing by the Tories is astounding. Have they completely lost the plot? What do they think any undecided voter is going to think of them now?

That's the who do you trust? question settled.

- No mention of this on the BBC. More bias?

It's on the BBC - that's where I found out about it.

Puja

Is it? I couldn't find it...

I'll be honest, I've not read any of the manifestos in detail but I have seen things from all of them that are concerning.

I think it should be patently obvious that a capitalist society is the only way forward: people must be rewarded for having aspirations and working toward them.

But we also must provide for those people whose aspirations are not related to their work environment.

How?

I agree strongly with the Labour concept of taxing dividends as a salary. It is personal income, it should be taxed as such.

That's a problem here in Hungary, where there's no progressive tax system, but the UK has a progressive tax system, so self-starters will be able to withdraw a living wage from a company without problems.

But people who want to start business should be encouraged. And there should be tools provided to make that easier and simpler.

I strongly disagree with the Green party tax on frequent fliers. Air travel is a tiny, tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions and it provides massive boosts to the country in terms of personal welfare. When people can make short trips to Europe, it raises their wellbeing and increases productivity. It should be encouraged.

We need to do more to help young people get a start in life. How?

Training, mentor programs, and an end to unpaid internships would be a start. Unpaid internships are a scourge as they provide a way in to companies for the well-off only. Someone who needs to earn a wage is instantly excluded, meaning only those from rich(er) families can manage it.

Tax benefits for small companies when it comes to employment would also be welcome, and could also go someway to saving the British highstreet.

On that, encourage (or force) councils to offer better rates to local businesses. They are often the backbone of local society and we should be looking to encourage them at every level.

More funding for schools and the NHS.

Reduction in funding for the armed forces coupled with an extensive review into wastage in the armed forces. Yes, it's not as bad as the US, but there is a lot of waste.

Renationalisation of many services that are monopolies.

Royal Mail buy back.
Water companies - make a checklist they have to abide by. If they get 3 failures, it triggers an immediate end to the contract so the government can take it back. The standard was absolutely shocking when I was there, and I still here of poor service and poor pipes.
Look to renationalise rail services, but not essential yet.
Look to lessen the amount of long-distance haulage by increasing rates on LPG and increasing the service offered by rail freight. Aim to reduce the number of lorries on Britains roads by 35% at least (this is something Europe should consider because the waterway system is available and usable. It would have a big impact on the environment and would not slow down transport times).

Many more.

But I don't see much of this raised.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Look up the definition of capital income. I think you're using the wrong term.

I do all the time, and I'm actually an economist, sort of. Point being it shifts tax from the corporation to the individual, which makes much more sense. And it especially makes much more sense to plan it advance than to continue to stumble along as we are in a race of corp taxes being pushed down to 0% and then trying to bolt on poorly thought out schemes to replace the lost revenue

In theory I agree that taxing the individual is better than taxing companies. There are some problems with this idea in practice, however:

1) It only really works if there is joined up thinking across the whole tax system in the long term, as follows. If companies aren't taxed then an owner can build up great amounts of value in them (capital gains) over time. This is ok only if these gains are taxed before they are paid (by whatever means) to the owner (or their estate, should it come to that). And if the system is watertight, they will be. But if there's a loophole, or if a certain government decides to make an exception, a tax break, etc then these gains will be funnelled through this route and will never be taxed. This is bad news, and there's nothing one government can do to prevent a future government (Trump-style) from enabling this tax-avoiding. So it's much safer to tax the capital gains the moment they arise (ie as profits).

2) Tax is raised from a variety of sources. In any given year, the amount taken from each source cannot be precisely predicted. So it's less risky to take income from lots of places - the total will be less volatile.

3) It's politically easier to take revenue from many sources - the pain is shared out.

I'm open to a number of approaches on things like witholding tax. And I'd also note you could combine the current HMRC split on corp. tax and individual tax and just process (go after) the individual. And whilst there are some very rich individuals in the main individuals will not retain teams of lawyers and accountants as do companies to seek to (legally or otherwise) avoid as much tax as possible

This amused me: https://www.thetorymanifesto.com/

Puja

Puja wrote:This amused me: https://www.thetorymanifesto.com

Which Tyler wrote:I know Rachel Riley cops a fair bit of undeserved abuse (or, ,ore likely, deserved abuse that goes way beyond what's deserved) - but she fully deserves abuse for this stunt: https://www.indy100.com/article/rachel- ... sm-9211821.

Deserves to be sacked for this one - objecting to her workplace hosting a political debate and including Corbyn. Had she kept it personal, then she'd simply deserve abuse (preferably from Jimmy Carr); as it is, she brought her work into it, and objects to their political neutrality; and that is surely sackable.

She's almost on the money, Corbyn might not be a racist but he certainly supports racists and he's happy to take the support of racists, Riley's problem there is that mayn't fit quite so neatly on a t-shirt. I do appreciate she's using an image of Corbyn protesting apartheid which might upset some, but to me it just means we can again cite rank hypocrisy as one of Corbyn's many egregious failings

Also you think she should be sacked? I've not read up on the story in any way, but is saying she didn't feel comfortable frankly much of an objection to an event going ahead (or one that had already gone ahead) or to any neutrality? For myself fair play to her, I imagine she's receiving death and rape threats on the back of this, and she'd know from prior experience that was going to happen/worsen, so it's no easy thing to stand up to make the comments she has

Digby wrote: Also you think she should be sacked? I've not read up on the story in any way, but is saying she didn't feel comfortable frankly much of an objection to an event going ahead (or one that had already gone ahead) or to any neutrality? For myself fair play to her, I imagine she's receiving death and rape threats on the back of this, and she'd know from prior experience that was going to happen/worsen, so it's no easy thing to stand up to make the comments she has

Without getting into your predictable anti-Corbyn spiel...

Yes, I think she should be sacked - that's whyni said that I think she deserves to be sacked. She brought work into it, and outright says that the leader of the opposition shouldn't be given airtime in leadership debates.

I do not defend (and have previously condemned) the sort of abuse she tends to receive, which is why I said "I know Rachel Riley cops a fair bit of undeserved abuse (or, more likely, deserved abuse that goes way beyond what's deserved)"

She deserves abuse for that t-shirt, and that tweet. She does not deserve threats of any nature, or abuse based on her gender/appearance.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote: Also you think she should be sacked? I've not read up on the story in any way, but is saying she didn't feel comfortable frankly much of an objection to an event going ahead (or one that had already gone ahead) or to any neutrality? For myself fair play to her, I imagine she's receiving death and rape threats on the back of this, and she'd know from prior experience that was going to happen/worsen, so it's no easy thing to stand up to make the comments she has

Without getting into your predictable anti-Corbyn spiel...

Yes, I think she should be sacked - that's whyni said that I think she deserves to be sacked. She brought work into it, and outright says that the leader of the opposition shouldn't be given airtime in leadership debates.

I do not defend (and have previously condemned) the sort of abuse she tends to receive, which is why I said "I know Rachel Riley cops a fair bit of undeserved abuse (or, more likely, deserved abuse that goes way beyond what's deserved)"

She deserves abuse for that t-shirt, and that tweet. She does not deserve threats of any nature, or abuse based on her gender/appearance.

The reason for the predictable anti-Corbyn spiel is merely of course he's such an unpleasant shit.

What did she actually say that equates to the leader of the opposition not being given airtime?

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I do all the time, and I'm actually an economist, sort of. Point being it shifts tax from the corporation to the individual, which makes much more sense. And it especially makes much more sense to plan it advance than to continue to stumble along as we are in a race of corp taxes being pushed down to 0% and then trying to bolt on poorly thought out schemes to replace the lost revenue

In theory I agree that taxing the individual is better than taxing companies. There are some problems with this idea in practice, however:

1) It only really works if there is joined up thinking across the whole tax system in the long term, as follows. If companies aren't taxed then an owner can build up great amounts of value in them (capital gains) over time. This is ok only if these gains are taxed before they are paid (by whatever means) to the owner (or their estate, should it come to that). And if the system is watertight, they will be. But if there's a loophole, or if a certain government decides to make an exception, a tax break, etc then these gains will be funnelled through this route and will never be taxed. This is bad news, and there's nothing one government can do to prevent a future government (Trump-style) from enabling this tax-avoiding. So it's much safer to tax the capital gains the moment they arise (ie as profits).

2) Tax is raised from a variety of sources. In any given year, the amount taken from each source cannot be precisely predicted. So it's less risky to take income from lots of places - the total will be less volatile.

3) It's politically easier to take revenue from many sources - the pain is shared out.

I'm open to a number of approaches on things like witholding tax. And I'd also note you could combine the current HMRC split on corp. tax and individual tax and just process (go after) the individual. And whilst there are some very rich individuals in the main individuals will not retain teams of lawyers and accountants as do companies to seek to (legally or otherwise) avoid as much tax as possible

Yes, I can see why putting the corp and income tax take all into income tax would be simpler and better in some ways in theory, but I can't see past those 3 objections of mine, particularly the first.

Also, another point that occurs to me is that (at least for owner-run companies)) the tax take is smoother over time if it's taken as the profit arises rather than when dividends happen to be paid.

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote: Also you think she should be sacked? I've not read up on the story in any way, but is saying she didn't feel comfortable frankly much of an objection to an event going ahead (or one that had already gone ahead) or to any neutrality? For myself fair play to her, I imagine she's receiving death and rape threats on the back of this, and she'd know from prior experience that was going to happen/worsen, so it's no easy thing to stand up to make the comments she has

Without getting into your predictable anti-Corbyn spiel...

Yes, I think she should be sacked - that's whyni said that I think she deserves to be sacked. She brought work into it, and outright says that the leader of the opposition shouldn't be given airtime in leadership debates.

I do not defend (and have previously condemned) the sort of abuse she tends to receive, which is why I said "I know Rachel Riley cops a fair bit of undeserved abuse (or, more likely, deserved abuse that goes way beyond what's deserved)"

She deserves abuse for that t-shirt, and that tweet. She does not deserve threats of any nature, or abuse based on her gender/appearance.

The reason for the predictable anti-Corbyn spiel is merely of course he's such an unpleasant shit.

What did she actually say that equates to the leader of the opposition not being given airtime?

Why is he such an unpleasant shit?

Because the way I see it...he's far less an unpleasant shit than Johnson or Gove or Raab or any of their racist friends in the Conservative Party.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:This amused me: https://www.thetorymanifesto.com

Looks like they've leaked the main points ahead of the official release

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:This fake website thing by the Tories is astounding. Have they completely lost the plot? What do they think any undecided voter is going to think of them now?

That's the who do you trust? question settled.

- No mention of this on the BBC. More bias?

It's on the BBC - that's where I found out about it.

Puja

Do you have a link to it on the BBC website? I can't find it. It's certainly not headline news!

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:This amused me: https://www.thetorymanifesto.com

Looks like they've leaked the main points ahead of the official release

It’s not particularly clever, you can immediately tell it’s a spoof. Why would we want to fuck the poor? Who would clean our (second) homes and build our bespoke shepherd’s hut in which to write our memoirs?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:If companies aren't taxed then an owner can build up great amounts of value in them (capital gains) over time. This is ok only if these gains are taxed before they are paid (by whatever means) to the owner (or their estate, should it come to that). And if the system is watertight, they will be. But if there's a loophole, or if a certain government decides to make an exception, a tax break, etc then these gains will be funnelled through this route and will never be taxed.

Can fix this with a wealth tax of course.

Oh look - Pasty Cockwomble's still scared of accountability, and has refused to take part in the second leader's debate - or indeed, his local hustings.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 12926.html