Jeremy Corbyn

Corporation tax revenue, the idea that it's inelastic is just wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/22/corporation-tax-downward-trend-oecd-gdp-growth

Also, is Corporation Tax more/less progressive/regressive than VAT? Firms pay VAT on the stuff they sell and that's deemed regressive (rightly or wrongly) by many. Why is corporation tax any less regressive - the money ultimately comes from customers.

Corbyn doing well to be fair. That green party woman is making me want to vote for whoever will piss her off the most though!

@aa, JC is far from smashing it out of the park.
He's putting in a decent performance, but Nuttall and Robertson are doing a MUCH better job regardless of what you think of them or their views.

Farron has been poor, and greens + welsh have pretty much let themselves be sidelined.

Nutall is doing a good job 😯 if you mean look like a hate filled xenophobe then yes he is doing a great job
Otherwise I have no idea what you mean
He is doing the worst mainly because his views are awful

JC is doing ok no clear winner so far but some obvious losers

Are they still debating ...

Crikey, I have just switched on telly only to see BBC 1 ... BBC election debate again ... arrghhh ... Caroline Lucas still wipes the floor of shouty shouty Tim. 😆

Ok enough for 5 mins watching ... now I am switching to Location, Location, Location ... 😆

Chewy, you appear to have caught Tory repeataphrasitis

JC is far from smashing it out of the park.

I agree. Listening to him recently I've been thinking he's been really good in presentation terms in the campaign.

Watching the debate I realize I'd just got used to him and recalibrated my expectations.

Seeing him in a room full of 'proper' professional politicians you realize how utterly dreadful he is.

You cannot think corbyn looked bad there unless you have really blue glasses on and whoTF thinks nuttall looks professional or proper?

@Junkyard, you dont need to like someone or their views to evaluate if they've done a good job in a debate or not.

I'm never going to vote UKIP or SNP, but they've both done an excellent job making their respective points.

Against my expectations I really enjoyed Tim Farron's contributions 😯

Mods please deleted one of the duplicate thread above ... arrggh ... my pooter is playing up ... 😮

Pook - Member
Chewy, you appear to have caught Tory repeataphrasitis

It must be my pooter ... 😮

you dont need to like someone or their views to evaluate if they've done a good job in a debate or not.

Well can we all agree Jambo would have done a better job than Rudd?

Did you read my post? I said JC was doing a decent performance. Didn't really do much wrong, but didn't stand out either.

He was certainly better than Farron (who i'll most likely be voting for), the welsh and greens.

I thought Tim Farron did great; although I'd still never vote for Lib Dems.
Corbyn seems well up for the job ... he has gone from getting my vote reluctantly - to now getting it happily.

UKIP fella came across as too EDL ...

Rudd stood no chance. She looks almost as evil as Theresa May ... but less weak & wobbly.

Biggest plank had to be Leanne Wood though; totally speechless when asked about her plan to increase immigration in Wales ... absolutely no idea

fifeandy - Member
Did you read my post? I said JC was doing a decent performance. Didn't really do much wrong, but didn't stand out either.

Rudd stood no chance. She looks almost as evil as Theresa May ... but less weak & wobbly.

Good leadership pitch though...

@aa, Rudd didn't do that badly. Got her points across, did particularly well diffusing cuts to police numbers, but muddled her words a couple of times which was a bit clumsy.
Policies set aside, a very similar performance to JC.

[quote=fifeandy ]Did you read my post? I said JC was doing a decent performance.

My mistake apologies I was confusing you with someone else
Sorry

@Junkyard, you dont need to like someone or their views to evaluate if they've done a good job in a debate or not.

I'm never going to vote UKIP or SNP, but they've both done an excellent job making their respective points.

Yup. I think people who take a partisan tribal view of politics can't really comprehend that most other people don't.

Neil Kinnock's a first glass orator, Tony Blair would have utterly shone in the debate today. Red tinted glasses? Or just an objective opinion?

@aa, Rudd didn't do that badly. Got her points across, did particularly well diffusing cuts to police numbers, but muddled her words a couple of times which was a bit clumsy.
Policies set aside, a very similar performance to JC.

Seriously, she said nothing about why to vote Tory except trust us we'll be great!

I thought Tim Farron did great

I rate him, at least against the current dearth of political talent I rate him. Trying to hard tonight though but then his has to get himself noticed, oblivion beckons.

Biggest plank had to be Leanne Wood though; totally speechless when asked about her plan to increase immigration in Wales ... absolutely no idea

Agree. She's been good in the past, not good tonight. She was also the unfortunate target of the "That's not quite how diplomacy works" put down which made me chuckle.

Biggest plank had to be Leanne Wood though; totally speechless when asked about her plan to increase immigration in Wales ... absolutely no idea

I thought that was down to the presenter buggering up the question

@aa, what she actually said was very clear, you just didnt listen. She said they'd done a good job reducing the defecit (which is true). She said that had required some hard decisions on public spending (which is true). And she said we could continue to expect more of the same.

Like i've said in other threads, they don't actually have any headline policies or enticing spending, just more crap times ahead until we are running a surplus.

point was to call mays bluff and get through it with out bungling. Which he largely did.

This.

I wonder if it was planned all along?

I still think that it will have cost both red and blue a ton of votes. Neither should have taken part, it's a gift to raise the profile of the smaller parties.

@aa, what she actually said was very clear, you just didnt listen.

No I did listen and she said nothing of any note and came up with nothing other than the May lines that we should trust them and give them a mandate to get us out of the shit.

They have policies, Grammar schools for example a vote winner for them but she kept quiet only Nuttal mentioned them

I'm loving the fact that may, who called an election instead of preparing for Brexit, criticises Corbyn for doing an election debate but not preparing for Brexit.

UKIP fella came across as too EDL ...

Which is where UKIP are, they are the new EDL, BNP etc. c 5% of the vote who are racist

I'm loving the fact that may, who called an election instead of preparing for Brexit, criticises Corbyn for doing an election debate but not preparing for Brexit.

Yup, May is an utter failure, she was always just riding the wave, any wave.

That's how she do.

Yup. I think people who take a partisan tribal view of politics can't really comprehend that most other people don't.

She said they'd done a good job reducing the defecit (which is true)

Well yes, thats true, defecit hasn't come down as fast as they promised for sure - i guess you could argue its not such a good job. It is however trending the right way which given the mess they inherited is good progress.

What inherited mess? Darling and Brown had set us on a path to recovery after the global crash of 2008.
Osbornomics put the brakes on that and gave us a decade of recession

The direction of travel is downwards but they have consistently failed to achieve the targets they set for themselves[ gone in 5 years] about what they would achieve and have still not achieved what they said they would.

However one wants to describe this a good job reducing the defecit (which is true ) is untrue and I am not sure it can be considered a success

I will build you a house in 5 years
I know its now 7 years but look I have nearly put the roof on SUCCESS 😉

@ulysse, setting record defecits is hardly what i'd call a path to recovery.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/apr/22/budget-deficit-record

@Junkyard, point taken, i do tend to prefer my houses with a roof 🙂

they shot themselves in the foot by constantly setting themselves deficit targets they could never reach

same way May is doing again with immigrtion

Darling and Brown had set us on a path to recovery after the global crash of 2008.

Well, they predicted some lovely growth numbers

But then, anyone can do that

Brown had set us on a path to recovery after the global crash of 2008.

For clarification, are you referring to the same brown that sold off a lot of gold reserves at rock bottom prices?

No, I think he was talking about the one who ended boom and bust...

David Davis looking stunned & disheveled here, getting his arse handed to him on a plate by C4 news

the latest yougov with the tories now only on a 3pt lead obviously rattling them all,

Im sure that May will still win, the oldies will do as they did with brexit and shaft us all

but its very nice to see how chaotic the Tories have become, the CCHQ twitter account is now a kind of parody account thats in alternate universe

also noticed that our resident 'I paid my 3 quid to shaft Labour' Cranberry has done a Theresa and disappeared

'...oldies...brexit...shaft us all'
Wtf are you on about?
Sweeping generalisation; unsubstantiated; short on facts.

[quote=outofbreath ]I wonder if it was planned all along?

I don't know for how long he's planned it, but he certainly didn't wake up this morning and decide, the decision was made a while ago (I said as much earlier on one of these threads). Clever play leaving it to the last minute to announce it and so catching the Tories on the hop - I'm still surprised at just how poor their campaign has been managed, and apparently not anticipating such a tactic is yet another example of this, when it was such an obvious play.

I still think that it will have cost both red and blue a ton of votes. Neither should have taken part, it's a gift to raise the profile of the smaller parties.

It might have cost Labour a little against the smaller parties, but in reality not all that much as he did OK even if not spectacularly well. But then he didn't need to do spectacularly well because his principle opponent wasn't even there - this election isn't being fought out between Labour and the smaller parties, at least not in most seats. Nor does it really matter how well Rudd did (and she was somewhat better than I expected) because the Tory campaign is being fought with the whole thing focused around May. Rudd is an irrelevance as far as their GE campaign is concerned.

So you're half wrong - Labour were definitely right to take part, if only because it allowed the focus to be on May avoiding it, not only in the debate itself, but also in the questions she got asked today, and will be asked tomorrow. Whatever her answers are it keeps the focus on this issue and it's certainly not a vote winning one for the Tories. That is worth far, far more to Labour than any hit they might have taken in the debate itself.

As for the Tories, as I mentioned earlier it was a lose lose situation for them. On balance you're probably right, May was right to avoid it, though not necessarily quite for the reasons you're suggesting. It says something about my expectations of May if she had turned up that I still think staying away was preferable for her despite my comments above.

Here ya go Frank.

[img] [/img]

The Lord Ashcroft Polls above is interesting.

Between 18-24 - The idealistic views cultivated or brainwashed in the young.

Between 25-34 - They search for their utopia and put their ideals to work.

Between 35-44 - Some have started to wake up from their slumber and somehow slowly realise the reality is not as thought after so many years of chasing the ideals.

Between 45-54 - Half of them have woken up from their utopia and now know that they have been cheated, while the other make it by exploiting the weak ones who they preached on.

Between 55-64 - More have woken up but rather late.

65+ - More have woken up to smell the dirt but too late while the other 40% retire with their bounty to see world full of roses from their exploit.

😆

Or the young embrace a borderless world and embrace the opportunity. The old want somebody to blame.

mikewsmith - Member
Or the young embrace a borderless world and embrace the opportunity.

"... borderless world ..." I remember working for a technology firm in the far east many years ago, where I started to see the term borderless world popping up in all sort of books and mags ... so funny. 😆

What people don't realise is that the notion of "borderless world" is applicable to the interweb only. 😆

The old want somebody to blame.

Please don't feed the troll.

I remember reading Borderless World by Kenichi Ohmae (Harvard Business Review, 1989) then The rise of the region state (Kenchi Ohmae - Foreign affairs, 1993) ... interesting read.

While working for a tech company I got so bored so started reading them books. Very scary as the author gives you insight into the hidden dark side without spelling them out. 😆

Floating around Facebook this morning:

[i]"This Facebook Comment About the UK Election Is Going Viral
By Chris Renwick / filmsforaction.org / May 30, 2017
Here's what I'm really struggling to understand. All I've ever heard from people, for years, is:

"bloody bankers and their bonuses"
"bloody rich and their offshore tax havens "
"bloody politicians with their lying and second homes"
“bloody corporations paying less tax than me”
"bloody Establishment, they're all in it together”
“it'll never change, there's no point in voting”

And quite rightly so, I said all the same things.

But then someone comes along that's different. He upsets the bankers and the rich. The Tory politicians hate him along with most of the labour politicians. The corporations throw more money at the politicians to keep him quiet. And the Establishment is visibly shaken. I've never seen the Establishment so genuinely scared of a single person.

So the media arm of the establishment gets involved. Theresa phones Rupert asking what he can do, and he tells her to keep her mouth shut, don't do the live debate, he'll sort this out. So the media goes into overdrive with:

“she's strong and stable”
“he's a clown”
“he's not a leader”
“look he can't even control his own party”
“he'll ruin the economy”
“how's he gonna pay for it all?!”
“AND he's a terrorist sympathiser, burn him, burn the terrorist sympathiser”

And what do we? We've waited forever for an honest politician to come along but instead of getting behind him we bow to the establishment like good little workers. They whistle and we do a little dance for them. We run around like hypnotised robots repeating headlines we've read, all nodding and agreeing. Feeling really proud of ourselves because we think we've came up with our very own first political opinion. But we haven't, we haven't came up with anything. This is how you tell. No matter where someone lives in the country, they're repeating the same headlines, word for word. From Cornwall to Newcastle people are saying:

“he's a clown”
“he’s a threat to the country”
“she's strong and stable”
“he'll take us back to the 70s”

And there's nothing else, there's no further opinion. There's no evidence apart from 1 radio 5 interview that isn't even concrete evidence, he actually condemns the violence of both sides in the interview. There's no data or studies or official reports to back anything up. Try and think really hard why you think he's a clown, other than the fact he looks like a geography teacher. (no offence geography teachers) because he hasn't done anything clownish from what I've seen.

And you're not on this planet if you think the establishment and the media aren't all in it together.

You think Richard Branson, who's quietly winning NHS contracts, wants Corbyn in?
You think Rupert Murdoch, who's currently trying to widen his media monopoly by buying sky outright, wants Jeremy in?
You think the Barclay brothers, with their offshore residencies, want him in?
You think Philip Green, who stole all the pensions from BHS workers and claims his wife owns Top Shop because she lives in Monaco, wants Corbyn in?
You think the politicians, both Labour and Tory, with their second homes and alcohol paid for by us, want him in?
You think Starbucks, paying near zero tax, wants him in?
You think bankers, with their multi million pound bonuses, want him in?

And do you think they don't have contact with May? Or with the media? You honestly think that these millionaires and billionaires are the sort of people that go “ah well, easy come easy go, it was nice while it lasted”?? I wouldn't be if my personal fortune was at risk, I'd be straight on the phone to Theresa May or Rupert Murdoch demanding this gets sorted immediately.

Because here's a man, a politician that doesn't lie - he can't lie - he could have said whatever would get him votes anytime he wanted but he hasn't. He lives in a normal house like us and uses the bus just like us. He's fought for justice and peace for nearly 40 years. He has no career ambitions. And his seat is untouchable. That's one of the greatest testimonies. No one comes close to removing him from his constituency, election after election.

His Manifesto is fully costed. It all adds up, yes there's some borrowing but that's just to renationalise the railway, you know we already subsidise them and they make profit yeah? One more time… WE subsidise the railway companies and they walk away with a profit, just try and grasp the level of piss taking going on there.

Unlike the Tory manifesto with a £9 billion hole, their figures don't even add up.

And it benefits all of us, young, old, working, disabled, everyone. The only people it hurts are the establishment, the rich, the bankers, the top 5% highest earners.

Good, screw them. It's long overdue. "[/i]

And to Frank, [url= https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/demographics-dividing-britain/ ]here[/url] is some data around age and party.

The old vote tory and the old vote brexit.

So basically a load of old people deciding what the future will be like for the younger people based on their dated ideals which contradict the ideals of the young.

wall of text up there

The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue. But you go ahead and shoot the golden goose.

Aren't the banks leaving due to brexit anyway?

The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue. But you go ahead and shoot the golden goose.

You know what, **** em. I'm tired of that argument and I'd rather pay more tax myself if the financial institutions leave.

The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue. But you go ahead and shoot the golden goose.

Has that covered the 2008 bailout yet?

The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue.

But how much should they be paying if they didn't have access to the world's foremost offshore financial network?

Speaking of funny money:

[img] ?oh=ac09b60026febf2912dd1dc99da236c1&oe=599DFE4F[/img]

JiveHoneyJive - perhaps that's because the army is largely a fixed cost.

What about consumables like fuel for ships, planes, tanks etc not to mention all those environmentally friendly bombz n missilez?

The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue. But you go ahead and shoot the golden goose.

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a country that didn't base it's economy on money laundering for the world's worst people?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/roberto-saviano-britain-corrupt-mafia-hay-festival-a7054851.html

The city pays 10% of the tax take because theres **** all income tax take due to massaged unemployment figures, wage stagnation at the bottom and zero hours contracts

The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue. But you go ahead and shoot the golden goose.
Has that covered the 2008 bailout yet?

About £130 bn in actual cost IIRC so yes, ages ago.

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a country that didn't base it's economy on money laundering for the world's worst people?

Unlike many on here, I don't think finance is inherently immoral. It's an essential service. Of course there are wrong uns, it's a huge industry.

Few points utah you can't have it both ways. If brexit won't make them leave due to regulations and problems, why would a small increase in Corp tax make them go?
Bankers who love London will leave due to a small income tax increase?

Mike, where have I said I support Brexit? Terrible idea. I was responding to the general "f*** 'em" tone. Your points are cumulative, not exclusive. If we're doing brexit, is this the time for further discouragement? Agree a few percent will probably be ok, just don't think now's the time.

Of course there are wrong uns, it's a huge industry.

[quote=airtragic ]The city pays about 10% of this country's tax revenue.

Maybe it should be paying nearer its fair share.

Aracer - and what would be its "fair share"?

Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state - with many of these demanding more state spending and tax cuts.

Maybe it's about time to have the difficult conversation that if we want more spending on the state that will ultimately require all of us to pay significantly more tax?

Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state - with many of these demanding more state spending and tax cuts.

Spread the wealth around and it would be less than 60%...

Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state

He means net financial contribution, not actually how people contribute to our society.

It's a very narrow definition which helpfully tells us much about the people who use it.

I understood that - I still don't believe it though.
It might be true if you [i]only[/i] look at income tax.

Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state

I remembered reading something like that a few years ago
[url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html ]Link[/url] but that is a few years out of date so no idea if the same analysis done now would be the same

That's a Daily Mail link with info provided by the Centre for Policy Studies, the Conservatives 'own' political think tank.

The Tory/CPS link used to be mentioned as a matter of fact on the BBC.
They don't mention it any more.

I know - but it is the only link I could find to the claim, which in itself is rather telling.

Anyone seen this [url= https://www.tactical2017.com/ ]Tactical voting[/url] ??

The reason many people raise the net financial contribution point is to make it cleqf where the tax burden really falls and to counter the nonsense that the "rich" don't oay their "fair share"

The reason many people raise the net financial contribution point is to make it cleqf where the tax burden really falls and to counter the nonsense that the "rich" don't oay their "fair share"

The rich take more than their fair share too so all balances out doesn't it. Well it would if a bit more tax was taken off them.

The old vote tory and the old vote brexit.

So basically a load of old people deciding what the future will be like for the younger people based on their dated ideals which contradict the ideals of the young.

The "old" those of wisdom who have helped create the wealthy and free country we all now live in. The "old" who soent most of their lives without credit cards, car loans or easy mortgage finance. The "old" who understand living withing their means. The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country.

^^ 😆

The "old" those of wisdom who have helped create the wealthy and free country we all now live in. The "old" who soent most of their lives without credit cards, car loans or easy mortgage finance. The "old" who understand living withing their means. The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country

Yep, those old. They used to be pretty good when young but unfortunately age has turned them into selfish tory brexiters.

I thought his Brexit speech was good, but then I'm not one of the ex-UKIPers it was meant to attract.

The old that were guaranteed a job, a pension and being able to buy a house in their home town.
Very few old people who fought in the war are still alive.