General Election - 8th June 2017

[kowenicki]

2 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

Over simplified generalisation or rubbish. Make you're mind up there's a world of difference.

 

Its both. It can be both. 

 

You havent answered my earlier question on the labour claim of direct correlation between the rise in corp tax and the revenue it will generate. 

 

Are labour correct that they will definitely be directly proportionate. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by kowenicki

[kowenicki]

1 minute ago, blueatheart said:

I'm shocked at how small the police budget is in comparion to the NHS budget.

 

Edit: not that I want us to be like America!

 

Really!? The NHS is enormous. And enormously expensive. 

[UsedtobeWozzer]

1 minute ago, kowenicki said:

 

Its both. It can be both. 

 

You havent answered my earlier question on the labour claim of direct correlation between the rise in corp tax and the revenue it will generate. 

 

Are labour correct that they will definitely be directly proportionate. 

I didn't make that statement - yesterday you criticised me for butting in on a debate you were having worth someone else now you're encouraging me to. Make your fucking mind up.

[kowenicki]

2 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

I didn't make that statement - yesterday you criticised me for butting in on a debate you were having worth someone else now you're encouraging me to. Make your fucking mind up.

 

Id like your comment as a numbers man on that please. 

[blueatheart]

3 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Really!? The NHS is enormous. And enormously expensive. 

Yes I know, on both counts, but for whatever reason I didn't expect police spending to be 3.1% of the total NHS. Not that I fully appreciate what the police is comprised of, how far the security forces et al are included. Where does the MET's counter terrorism unit sit etc.

[leeslover]

1 hour ago, joe_lead said:

 

Never suggested they were the same, but I think you knew that.  Feel free to think that all is well because we have people coming from around the world to take our low paid jobs, I will continue to work toward a higher skilled economy and look forward to the day when engineers from Scandanavia and Germany want to live and work here because we offer comparative opportunities, living and working standards.  

 

If you want a grown up debate about the impact of low pay, pay inequality and the skewed distribution of wealth I will happily engage with you, if you simply want to focus on specific words and numbers its best we call it a day.

My point was that reducing pay inequality might do nothing at all to increase pay levels at the lower end and may actually lower it.

 

PS you might not have noticed the worries about immigration controls stopping companies attracting top talent from around the world. There are hundreds of thousands of people from abroad who've come her to work in finance, science, space technology, the arts and so much more.

[UsedtobeWozzer]

10 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Id like your comment as a numbers man on that please. 

Clearly the amount of income raised in corporation tax is a function of the rate and the profits of the firms that pay it (and therefore by implication economic growth). Clearly this is an inexact science particularly when it comes to forecasting over the medium term. Having done a cursory google search (I wasn't Party to writing the Labour manifesto you'll be amazed to learn) they have based their projections on OBR forecasts. The OBR are not known for their accuracy but if you can point me in the direction of reputable economic forecasters who are I'll be sure to pass that information on to Labour HQ.

Edited June 2, 2017 by UsedtobeWozzer
Auto correct error!

[kowenicki]

9 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

Clearly the amount of income raised in corporation tax is a function of the rate and the profits of the firms that pay it (and therefore by implication economic growth). Clearly this is an inexact science particularly when it comes to forecasting over the medium term. Having done a cursory google search (I wasn't Party to writing the Labour manifesto you'll be amazed to learn) they have based their projections on OBR forecasts. The OBR are not known for their accuracy but if you can point me in the direction of reputable economic forecasters who are I'll be sure to pass that information on to Labour HQ.

 

A simple 'no they are not definitely correlated' would suffice.  Because that is the only sensible answer anyone with even a bit of knowledge can give. Labours entire spending plans depend on them being correlated. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by kowenicki

[UsedtobeWozzer]

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

A simple 'no they are not definitely correlated' would suffice.  Because that is the only sensible answer anyone with even a bit of knowledge can give. Labours entire spending plans depend on them being correlated. 

I'll take your word for it I haven't looked at the OBR forecasts or their assumptions. I suppose my comeback would be at least they've had a stab at forecasting unlike the other lot who astonishingly didn't even bother.

[HarryBosch]

51 minutes ago, rummytheowl said:

 

I can't see the sources at the bottom, white on a green background and the size of fucking nonsense - plus my eyes are shagged.

One thing I do know is that things like that graph are created for a purpose, and it often omits data that may paint a very different picture. Not saying that one does 'cos I can't fucken read it.

 

Repeat to fade......

 

 

[View Of Golden Gate]

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

 

Who is asking you to brag.  I'm just wondering what shapes your polarised and aggressive view.  I find it interesting.

 

I disagree with how our country is being run, I happen to like Labour's policies. I like the idea of trying to change the way wealth is distributed, I happen to want our NHS to stay ours and not be sold off, I happen to appreciate what our public services do and want them to run correctly, I happen to like children being educated, I happen to hate the idea of Boris meeting anyone important ever, I happen to support Labour for this election.

 

I personally find it interesting that someone as successful as yourself, that you pay more in tax that I will in my lifetime has the time to spend all day on here, I'm not going to ask you about it because that is your business. I think the reasons for me supporting Labour are made very clear in previous posts, however, you only wish to debate things that suit your own view. If someone asks you a question you don't like you avoid it, you post a table there is no doubt if genuine is damning on the previous Labour government. 

 

They were not this Labour, they were more Conservative than this current Labour, so comparing the two is misleading. As you put earlier there is no point discussing anything with anyone like me, which is usually code for "I do not know how to win this debate, so I will make you the problem, not my inability to convince you."   

[oafcmetty]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe?utm_content=buffer3fd1b

[kowenicki]

3 hours ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

I disagree with how our country is being run, I happen to like Labour's policies. I like the idea of trying to change the way wealth is distributed, I happen to want our NHS to stay ours and not be sold off, I happen to appreciate what our public services do and want them to run correctly, I happen to like children being educated, I happen to hate the idea of Boris meeting anyone important ever, I happen to support Labour for this election.

 

I personally find it interesting that someone as successful as yourself, that you pay more in tax that I will in my lifetime has the time to spend all day on here, I'm not going to ask you about it because that is your business. I think the reasons for me supporting Labour are made very clear in previous posts, however, you only wish to debate things that suit your own view. If someone asks you a question you don't like you avoid it, you post a table there is no doubt if genuine is damning on the previous Labour government. 

 

They were not this Labour, they were more Conservative than this current Labour, so comparing the two is misleading. As you put earlier there is no point discussing anything with anyone like me, which is usually code for "I do not know how to win this debate, so I will make you the problem, not my inability to convince you."   

 

I haven't spent all day on here. I've dipped in and out. I know this because I've had 4 meetings, eaten with my family and had an hour in the pub at lunchtime with a mate. 

 

Thanks for your full answer,  my reasons for not voting labour are almost identical. 

[leeslover]

18 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

I haven't spent all day on here. I've dipped in and out. I know this because I've had 4 meetings, eaten with my family and had an hour in the pub at lunchtime with a mate. 

 

Thanks for your full answer,  my reasons for not voting labour are almost identical. 

I did all that, and I had a 2's up with Gisele and Susie Dent. And I don't think my wife found out.

[UsedtobeWozzer]

8 minutes ago, leeslover said:

I did all that, and I had a 2's up with Gisele and Susie Dent. And I don't think my wife found out.

Riley not interested? 

[joe_lead]

After tonights Question Time Leaders Special, Frankie Boyle on Twitter -

'All the average British punter wants is to be paid less than £10 an hour and be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and good luck to em'

[UsedtobeWozzer]

1 hour ago, joe_lead said:

After tonights Question Time Leaders Special, Frankie Boyle on Twitter -

'All the average British punter wants is to be paid less than £10 an hour and be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and good luck to em'

It almost makes you feel grateful for British politicians whatever their hue. The apparent desire for nuclear holocaust in that audience tonight was pretty chilling.

[leeslover]

4 hours ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

Riley not interested? 

I wouldn't climb over Winchester to get to her

Edited June 3, 2017 by leeslover

[joe_lead]

6 hours ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

It almost makes you feel grateful for British politicians whatever their hue. The apparent desire for nuclear holocaust in that audience tonight was pretty chilling.

 

Chilling is a good description, the young lass hit the nail on the head before she asked her human rights question when she said ' I don't understand why everyone in this room is so keen to kill millions of people with a nuclear bomb'.  Seemed like JC wanted to say it but was biting his lip

[GlossopLatic]

1 hour ago, joe_lead said:

 

Chilling is a good description, the young lass hit the nail on the head before she asked her human rights question when she said ' I don't understand why everyone in this room is so keen to kill millions of people with a nuclear bomb'.  Seemed like JC wanted to say it but was biting his lip

 

The nuclear option is a highly unlikely option for whoever gets in the questions were hypothetical.

 

The big issue people have with Corbyn on this (who has grown on me slightly during the campaign) is that he is too much of a pacifist. Sometimes a prime minister has to be prepared to use military force whether it ne in the middle east or anywhere else if Argentina invaded the Falklands he would just stand by and watch them take it. We live in a world of an expansionist Russia we need people like Macron in France who is going to stand up to Putin not ask him round for a talk and a cuddle over a cup of fair trade tea.

Edited June 3, 2017 by GlossopLatic

[kowenicki]

Sigh. Those people didn't want a nuclear holocaust.. obviously. It was a question of his pacifism. He is one. He may as well unilaterally disarm if you will never use it under any circumstances.  The threat of having it as a deterrent is no deterrent if you openly say you will never use it. 

 

I see the whoopers and whistlers where in again happy clapping every single word and giggling at the weakest of weak jokes. 

 

Both poor again last night obviously. Independent observers stating that Corbyn struggled slightly more and I'd agree with that.

Edited June 3, 2017 by kowenicki

[underdog]

You know I'm of the mind that not one party's policies cover what I want. I loath those tv programmes where all representatives are on stage as they just spiral into the "let me finish..." Interruptions and just arguing with each other. The set up where it's one party rep v the audience I like.

 

Wish we could try something different like a vote on the policies and what's best for you. If you like labours NHS policy vote for them, foreign policy might by Tories, environment Green Party ect....

 

yes  I know cabinet would be a right mad box of frogs and they would have to vote on who would be the chairperson/prime minister, but it would be interesting

 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by underdog

[GlossopLatic]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/06/polls-polls-polls

 

Their is article here on polls usually they are out by an average of 4% Labour are often over represented in them by 1.6% and The Conservatives are usually underrepresented by 1.1 %  With that in mind I think it will be as you were come next friday.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

18 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

So you are saying Labour is correct. We will definitely see a rise in corp tax revenues that is directly proportionate to the rise in the rate?

 

Yes. Other things being equal...such as the diligent collection of those taxes, which is generally frowned upon by Tories (and HMRC itself) as being unsporting or un-British.

[Matt]

44 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

Sigh. Those people didn't want a nuclear holocaust.. obviously. It was a question of his pacifism.

 

It's just been on the news, the young girl expressed the typical pacifist line - which is fine if everybody thought like that. I agree, nobody wants to engage in nuclear war, anyone who lived through Bay of Pigs and the 80's would understand that - however the UK isn't much of a player in these matters as we're not a Nuclear Triad country, we still have to position nuclear elements before we engage. In summary, we've got them - but they're as much use as tits on a fish.