I am not sure that a grand coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and other parties in the event of a hung parliament would be a 'coalition of losers' - it would actually be in the country's interest to keep this awful Conservative government out who are only there because of newspaper support.
I'd love to see my local MP Grant Schapps lose his seat - or should I say Michael Green, dodgy ex pyramid scheme salesman who edits the wiki profiles of his rivals.
i personally wouldn't let a man that would have to "think about" the consequences before blowing up an isis target make me a cup of tea let alone rule the country.
i personally wouldn't let a man that would have to "think about" the consequences before blowing up an isis target make me a cup of tea let alone rule the country.
i personally wouldn't let a man that would have to "think about" the consequences before blowing up an isis target make me a cup of tea let alone rule the country.
Consequences are an incredible thing.
Imagine that the ISIS target is rumoured. What if it turns out to be bad info and it's a hospital or other shelter for innocents... you have to live with that decision to kill x innocents if it's wrong.
i personally wouldn't let a man that would have to "think about" the consequences before blowing up an isis target make me a cup of tea let alone rule the country.
i personally wouldn't let a man that would have to "think about" the consequences before blowing up an isis target make me a cup of tea let alone rule the country.
What if the "target" gained us nothing but killed 100 innocent women and children in the surrounding area?
We're not out yet and the decision to leave was voted on LAST YEAR not 3 months ago when we had larger growth than all of the g7 countries.
Wait till Brexit actually happens!
Agree. I hope we are all hugely surprised by the outcome. The result of the election likely to be a hung parliament will mean May won't have the easy ride she wants on this.
Everyone knows what the outcome will be. The little Englanders who voted leave will be walking around for a few years with stupid smirks on their faces thinking they have their country back while the UK economy crashes for the next 10 years before we are begging the EU to let us back in.
i personally wouldn't let a man that would have to "think about" the consequences before blowing up an isis target make me a cup of tea let alone rule the country.
Oh dear ! Thats just the type of person we need in power, you know, giving some thought as to wether to use violence. If only Blair and Bush and (later) the others had thought more about invading Iraq/Libya etc, then we wouldn't have the bloody mess we have now.
Oh yes and by 'consequences' he means children and other innocent civilians. Just so you know.
We're not out yet and the decision to leave was voted on LAST YEAR not 3 months ago when we had larger growth than all of the g7 countries.
Wait till Brexit actually happens!
Agree. I hope we are all hugely surprised by the outcome. The result of the election likely to be a hung parliament will mean May won't have the easy ride she wants on this.
Everyone knows what the outcome will be. The little Englanders who voted leave will be walking around for a few years with stupid smirks on their faces thinking they have their country back while the UK economy crashes for the next 10 years before we are begging the EU to let us back in.
Nobody KNOWS the future, we can only predict and guess.
Without a conservative majority, we may end up with a far more balanced Brexit that doesn't end up with our economy collapsing as so many seem certain will occur. I mean that's playing devils advocate and all but I certainly think the UK will do better than many believe.
The Majority spoke and May has decided her rigid, un-moving method is best, this is alienating voters so we could be saying goodbye to her very soon.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
These same parents also obviously continue to pay taxes that educate children in the state sector, whilst at the same time removing the burden from the taxpayer for having to educate their own.
We should be talking about tax breaks for private education fees not VAT!
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
These same parents also obviously continue to pay taxes that educate children in the state sector, whilst at the same time removing the burden from the taxpayer for having to educate their own.
We should be talking about tax breaks for private education fees not VAT!
That's a far better critique of that element than I have made. More people will take their kids back out of the private system and into the state system.
Haven't we already been told that the state system is buckling and placing too much strain on teachers?
We're not out yet and the decision to leave was voted on LAST YEAR not 3 months ago when we had larger growth than all of the g7 countries.
Wait till Brexit actually happens!
Agree. I hope we are all hugely surprised by the outcome. The result of the election likely to be a hung parliament will mean May won't have the easy ride she wants on this.
Everyone knows what the outcome will be. The little Englanders who voted leave will be walking around for a few years with stupid smirks on their faces thinking they have their country back while the UK economy crashes for the next 10 years before we are begging the EU to let us back in.
Nobody KNOWS the future, we can only predict and guess.
Without a conservative majority, we may end up with a far more balanced Brexit that doesn't end up with our economy collapsing as so many seem certain will occur. I mean that's playing devils advocate and all but I certainly think the UK will do better than many believe.
The Majority spoke and May has decided her rigid, un-moving method is best, this is alienating voters so we could be saying goodbye to her very soon.
That's the really scary bit for me - 52% of those that chose to vote went for the UNKNOWN option.
If May fails to increase the tory majority, her position might become untenable - after all she called this unnecessary election for no reason other than it looked like an easy win and would give her the majority to do as she pleased.
However, there is a lying buffoon who would be a shoe in as the next leader, Now there's a thought!
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
These same parents also obviously continue to pay taxes that educate children in the state sector, whilst at the same time removing the burden from the taxpayer for having to educate their own.
We should be talking about tax breaks for private education fees not VAT!
That's a far better critique of that element than I have made. More people will take their kids back out of the private system and into the state system.
Haven't we already been told that the state system is buckling and placing too much strain on teachers?
Its nuttier than a special edition Snickers.
I think a lot of parents that send their kids to private schools would rather have their fees DOUBLED before they send their kids to a smelly state school.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
The figures have ben out there since the launch of the manifesto.
Yeah, and they've been wrong since then too.
Take corporation tax as an example. People wrongly assume that a whole business would have to move to avoid this country's corporation tax. It probably wouldn't. Just its Head Office location is likely sufficient. (By way of an illustration my bank has moved its HQ to Dublin. It still does the vast majority of its business in the UK.) The problem is there's probably not much a(ny) Government can do about that because of globalisation. Every government everywhere would like all its corporations to pay more tax in their own country. But corporations refuse to play ball. They have an obligation to their shareholders to minimise their tax obligations. So they'll transfer profits to Dublin or wherever by way of payments for use of naming rights and leave no UK profits to tax. Or use any one of a vast number of other ruses.
Even if a Labour Govt. was to raise the amount they promise (hope) the impact elsewhere would be marked. The choices for a business would be stark. Either it would suffer from share price falls and dividend reductions or it would have to raise prices to its consumers. The first option would see a hugely dramatic fall in the value of everyone's pension pot value, which would effect all of us. The second option would also, of course, effect all of us. In short, under a Labour regime we will all be worse off, not just the rich. My own prediction would be a significant increase in inflationary pressure and a marked ticking up of interest rates.
Here are some (fairly recent) figures on quoted share ownership:
Rest of the world ownership stood at an estimated 54% of the value of the UK stock market at the end of 2014. This was up from 31% in 1998 but unchanged from the 2012 estimate. (Will they stick around for less capital value and lower dividends when there are plenty of other options? I leave you to decide.)
UK individuals owned an estimated 12% of quoted UK shares by value at the end of 2014, an increase from the historic low of 10% in 2010 and 2012. (That's rich bastards who deserve slaughtering according to Labour - or small shareholders with ISAs trying to do the best for themselves. I leave you to decide.)
Unit trusts held an estimated 9% by value at the end of 2014, slightly down from the 2012 level but still much higher than in 1998, when they only accounted for 2% of share ownership. (That'll be us again. No choice needed.)
Other financial institutions held an estimated 7% by value at the end of 2014, similar to 2012 but lower than the estimated 12% they held in 2010. (That's rich bastards again, probably, maybe even the detested hedge funds.)
Insurance companies held an estimated 6% and pension funds an estimated 3% by value at the end of 2014, continuing the downward trends in these sectors seen in recent years. (That's us again.)
These figures are from the ONS. they don't add up to 100% because of smaller holdings by churches, private non-quoted companies and the public sector.
Nonetheless, the ONS reckon that 59% of the total of shareholdngs are held in multi-ownership pooled accounts. That is ordinary people.
Anyone who thinks (are you listening Jeremy) that you can screw companies and get away without it having a major impact on the whole country and everyone living in it, is living in a fool's paradise.
People just need to decide whether they want to join Mr Corbyn there and how long the experiment will last before the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
Comments
The responses I'd expect an automated bot about 10 years ago to reply with.
Imagine that the ISIS target is rumoured. What if it turns out to be bad info and it's a hospital or other shelter for innocents... you have to live with that decision to kill x innocents if it's wrong.
Oh yes and by 'consequences' he means children and other innocent civilians. Just so you know.
Without a conservative majority, we may end up with a far more balanced Brexit that doesn't end up with our economy collapsing as so many seem certain will occur. I mean that's playing devils advocate and all but I certainly think the UK will do better than many believe.
The Majority spoke and May has decided her rigid, un-moving method is best, this is alienating voters so we could be saying goodbye to her very soon.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
For the many not the few.
We should be talking about tax breaks for private education fees not VAT!
Haven't we already been told that the state system is buckling and placing too much strain on teachers?
Its nuttier than a special edition Snickers.
If May fails to increase the tory majority, her position might become untenable - after all she called this unnecessary election for no reason other than it looked like an easy win and would give her the majority to do as she pleased.
However, there is a lying buffoon who would be a shoe in as the next leader, Now there's a thought!
https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/
Take corporation tax as an example. People wrongly assume that a whole business would have to move to avoid this country's corporation tax. It probably wouldn't. Just its Head Office location is likely sufficient. (By way of an illustration my bank has moved its HQ to Dublin. It still does the vast majority of its business in the UK.) The problem is there's probably not much a(ny) Government can do about that because of globalisation. Every government everywhere would like all its corporations to pay more tax in their own country. But corporations refuse to play ball. They have an obligation to their shareholders to minimise their tax obligations. So they'll transfer profits to Dublin or wherever by way of payments for use of naming rights and leave no UK profits to tax. Or use any one of a vast number of other ruses.
Even if a Labour Govt. was to raise the amount they promise (hope) the impact elsewhere would be marked. The choices for a business would be stark. Either it would suffer from share price falls and dividend reductions or it would have to raise prices to its consumers. The first option would see a hugely dramatic fall in the value of everyone's pension pot value, which would effect all of us. The second option would also, of course, effect all of us. In short, under a Labour regime we will all be worse off, not just the rich. My own prediction would be a significant increase in inflationary pressure and a marked ticking up of interest rates.
Here are some (fairly recent) figures on quoted share ownership:
Rest of the world ownership stood at an estimated 54% of the value of the UK stock market at the end of 2014. This was up from 31% in 1998 but unchanged from the 2012 estimate. (Will they stick around for less capital value and lower dividends when there are plenty of other options? I leave you to decide.)
UK individuals owned an estimated 12% of quoted UK shares by value at the end of 2014, an increase from the historic low of 10% in 2010 and 2012. (That's rich bastards who deserve slaughtering according to Labour - or small shareholders with ISAs trying to do the best for themselves. I leave you to decide.)
Unit trusts held an estimated 9% by value at the end of 2014, slightly down from the 2012 level but still much higher than in 1998, when they only accounted for 2% of share ownership. (That'll be us again. No choice needed.)
Other financial institutions held an estimated 7% by value at the end of 2014, similar to 2012 but lower than the estimated 12% they held in 2010. (That's rich bastards again, probably, maybe even the detested hedge funds.)
Insurance companies held an estimated 6% and pension funds an estimated 3% by value at the end of 2014, continuing the downward trends in these sectors seen in recent years. (That's us again.)
These figures are from the ONS. they don't add up to 100% because of smaller holdings by churches, private non-quoted companies and the public sector.
Nonetheless, the ONS reckon that 59% of the total of shareholdngs are held in multi-ownership pooled accounts. That is ordinary people.
Anyone who thinks (are you listening Jeremy) that you can screw companies and get away without it having a major impact on the whole country and everyone living in it, is living in a fool's paradise.
People just need to decide whether they want to join Mr Corbyn there and how long the experiment will last before the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
(I'm still not voting.)