Labours policies make no sense whatsoever! For example: £10 minimum wage sounds wonderful but it's unrealistic for small businesses and the cost of living would go higher. It won't help when Labour want to increase Corporation Tax so that'd place an extra burden on small and medium sized businesses.
Labour also want to put extra tax on the rich and their businesses- It's all very well doing this but the rich will end up moving to other countries which wouldn't help.
We need to encourage people to start a business and Labour will be doing the exact opposite.
But of course when the shit hits the fan from Labour's mad policies Brexit will be blamed by the hard lefties
Agree, it's totally nuts - £10ph on a 37.5hr week is equivalent to nearly £20k pa.....
OMG that's almost 1/6th of the earnings of several posters on this thread who are so keen to tell us about their largesse in keeping the economy ticking over by sending their kids to public school, spending £1000's annually on eating out or having nice houses. How the hell will we cope? Let's drop it to £5 an hour instead then we'll have a much more successful economy. Nah sod it, make it £3 instead!!!
If you ignore the inflationary impact of giving millions of people a 33% payrise.....
Consider the industries that tend to employ lots of minimum wage staff (retail, bars/restaurants, hotels, warehouses etc.) - what is the first thing they will do in response?
You're ignoring the increase in the benefits bill supporting the working poor who can't afford to live without government support.
The Labour manifesto is accompanied by a second document on costings, which may or may not add up. However as a bloke said on the wireless yesterday, the only numbers in the Tory manifesto are the page numbers.
Even the argument about international status is baseless. Germany and Japan have no nuclear weapons, don't have interventionist foreign policy and sell to the world.
Missed the Theresa May part but I must say Corbyn at least believes in what he says which makes a change for politics. In my opinion if he didn't have himself surrounded with people like Abbott and McDonnell people would be much more inclined to vote for him.
He's thrown a bit of a wobbly on the nuclear weapons questions and as someone said earlier he answers every question in a vague way by expanding the answer in to other things, as I type this he's completely dodged the blokes questions about business' moving abroad (this is one of my big worries)
Corporation tax at 26% still lower than the other G7 countries. There, answered
That literally hasn't answered the question he was asked..
Didn't it? The suggestion was that if Corporation Tax was raised, companies would move to other countries. The response was that Labour's proposal to raise Corporation Tax would still result in the UK having the lowest rates of the other G7 countries, and with CT still being lower that it was in 2010. So, if companies did decide to leave the UK, it would clearly be for other reasons.
Why couldn't they move to Ireland?
Do they want to do business in our very wealthy economy? We are about to leave the EU after all and about to negotiate a lot of new trade deals.
Indeed. However, it'd be easier, and more profitable, to move their registered head office to Ireland and pay corporation tax there. Everything else stays in place for them.
It seems that those that were fretting about business leaving the UK as a result of Brexit, are now advocating trying to further push them away.
This has been discussed loads of times. If you run a successful business in the U.K. lets say a chain of car washes. You claim your HO is in Dublin, but how are you going to get your revenue and costs into the Dublin company's books? Send an invoice for " management services" or following the Starbucks model " brand use" ? HMRC will be down on you like a ton of Millwall Bricks.
Why then are they letting Google and Facebook get away with it? Well, you tell me. Incompetence and lack of resource, I would suggest though.
Actually it would be interesting to hear from @DamoNorthStand on this. His "boss", Sir Martin Sorrell, moved WPP HQ to Dublin. then he moved it back again. Right, Damo?
Missed the Theresa May part but I must say Corbyn at least believes in what he says which makes a change for politics. In my opinion if he didn't have himself surrounded with people like Abbott and McDonnell people would be much more inclined to vote for him.
He's thrown a bit of a wobbly on the nuclear weapons questions and as someone said earlier he answers every question in a vague way by expanding the answer in to other things, as I type this he's completely dodged the blokes questions about business' moving abroad (this is one of my big worries)
Corporation tax at 26% still lower than the other G7 countries. There, answered
That literally hasn't answered the question he was asked..
Didn't it? The suggestion was that if Corporation Tax was raised, companies would move to other countries. The response was that Labour's proposal to raise Corporation Tax would still result in the UK having the lowest rates of the other G7 countries, and with CT still being lower that it was in 2010. So, if companies did decide to leave the UK, it would clearly be for other reasons.
Why couldn't they move to Ireland?
Do they want to do business in our very wealthy economy? We are about to leave the EU after all and about to negotiate a lot of new trade deals.
Indeed. However, it'd be easier, and more profitable, to move their registered head office to Ireland and pay corporation tax there. Everything else stays in place for them.
It seems that those that were fretting about business leaving the UK as a result of Brexit, are now advocating trying to further push them away.
This has been discussed loads of times. If you run a successful business in the U.K. lets say a chain of car washes. You claim your HO is in Dublin, but how are you going to get your revenue and costs into the Dublin company's books? Send an invoice for " management services" or following the Starbucks model " brand use" ? HMRC will be down on you like a ton of Millwall Bricks.
Why then are they letting Google and Facebook get away with it? Well, you tell me. Incompetence and lack of resource, I would suggest though.
Actually it would be interesting to hear from @DamoNorthStand on this. His "boss", Sir Martin Sorrell, moved WPP HQ to Dublin. then he moved it back again. Right, Damo?
Prague your politics of tax thread was very good. It's a joke. The fact that these companies like google and Apple get away with fudging the system is disgusting. I couldn't give a monkeys about how they employ all these people etc. They take the piss. I think the best and most logical argument I heard was when Bob Munro said point of sale tax. The world cannot sustain this aggressive onslaught from these companies
The irony is that although google have opened up a new 'campus' (i mean campus, what a load utter wank right there), that will house 7,500 employees, they're also busy in an AI arms race to invent technologies that will see 1000s out of a job.
Strength and stability for me would be standing up to these tossers
For those who still deny how ridiculous this corp tax argument is, here is a little test.
Here is a list of brands you may either own, or aspire to own:
VW, BMW, Mercedes-Benz. Miele, Bosch, Siemens. Gardena. Sennheiser. Carl Zeiss Jena: -). Rodenstock. Nivea. Bayer. (etc, etc, look around your own home for further examples)
They all have their HQ in a country where corp.tax rate is currently 29.7%.
Can you name that country?
If you really can't, here is the link, showing that country's recent CIT history.
Can't believe some of the vile comments on twitter and Facebook calling members of the public bloodthirsty just because they wanted a straight answer from Corbyn about nuclear weapons.
He gave a straight answer about deals with the snp and condemning all acts of terror which shut down any more questions about that completely.
Can't believe some of the vile comments on twitter and Facebook calling members of the public bloodthirsty just because they wanted a straight answer from Corbyn about nuclear weapons.
He gave a straight answer about deals with the snp and condemning all acts of terror which shut down any more questions about that completely.
It does go to far at times, but it is a very emotive subject that most people are very ill informed about. When people talk about pressing a big red button that doesn't exist they don't really think of the consequences. I think @micks1950 is the most informed on the subject I have seen on this board.
I think there is a far simpler argument, do you want a country that retains it's international status through trade and economic prosperity or it's ability to blow the shit out of another country while committing indiscriminate genocide ? A country that welcomes international students to it's first class education system that leads through standards and innovation. £80 billion on a missile system, we hope, never be used or revitalizing our manufacturing industry through investment and education?
Can't believe some of the vile comments on twitter and Facebook calling members of the public bloodthirsty just because they wanted a straight answer from Corbyn about nuclear weapons.
He gave a straight answer about deals with the snp and condemning all acts of terror which shut down any more questions about that completely.
I can't believe people are asking whether he wants to kill millions of people, and that they're offended that his answer has been no.
I am thankfully not on twitter and facebook, and I believe Corbyn should have prepared a better answer. It seemed to me he wanted to say he wouldn't push the button, but he felt that politically he simply couldn't admit to it, which is a great shame. The people who want the weapons have not explained to me why every country doesn't want them too, and why some rich countries are OK to not have them. Lets take the Republic of Ireland for example, probably richer than North Korea, I don't hear them going on about having nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack, or to retaliate if they are attacked. If you think you know the answer why not, then that will probably help you to understand Corbyn's stance. The Greens have it right on Nuclear weapons and Trident in my view. Get rid of the lot in the UK, and don't expect the Americans or French or anybody else to use nuclear weapons on behalf of the UK either. There is a reason why only two have been used in a war so far, and they were two relatively weak nukes (if you can use that term) compared to what we have now. Perhaps people need to be re educated as to their impact, we're not talking bows and arrows here.
Can't believe some of the vile comments on twitter and Facebook calling members of the public bloodthirsty just because they wanted a straight answer from Corbyn about nuclear weapons.
He gave a straight answer about deals with the snp and condemning all acts of terror which shut down any more questions about that completely.
I can't believe people are asking whether he wants to kill millions of people, and that they're offended that his answer has been no.
But it wasn't no. It was "I'll think about it at the time" which, when you only have 10-15 mins to think about it and respond, isn't reassuring.
I don't understand what answer people want him to give tbh. "Yes I will happily fire a missile that kills millions of innocents". Hardly a vote winner.
I don't understand what answer people want him to give tbh. "Yes I will happily fire a missile that kills millions of innocents". Hardly a vote winner.
"And in doing so would destroy a stain on humanity and allow what's left of humanity to live on without being enslaved by a mad nuclear power"
That and the theory of MAD doesn't work if you say you won't use it..
Saying "BUT AMAGAD THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is a typically lazy response that the right usually reserve for social things that they have no real evidence to support.
It's as small minded as me saying Corbyn and his supporters are desperate to spend loads of money and bankrupt all of us and leave us starving on the streets and millions will die just like in soviet Russia. It's hyperbolic nonsense.
But it wasn't no. It was "I'll think about it at the time" which, when you only have 10-15 mins to think about it and respond, isn't reassuring.
This is what annoys me, everyone knows Corbyn is against Nuclear War and has been an activist for decades against it, as well as being there protesting against governments against the wars in Iraq and bombing Syria...and yet this is a bad thing to some? It's not a question that's debatable, no one should want to hear yes as an answer to it. In fact the only person in power who comes to mind about pro-nuclear weapons is Trump, does anyone want a politician who wants to be compared to that level? No.
One thing stood out from last night's debate, Corbyn's questions were mostly based on his past (which in perspective is just a man who wants peace by going right to the cause and trying to talk, but the media won't spin it that way), May's questions were everything about right now in the present about things that are affecting us all that they've caused in the last 7 years, and will continue to do so if the Conservatives are in power this time next week.
I'm quite frankly petrified about my future if the Conservatives win, because after 7 years I'm worn out of struggling to live because of their policies and their cuts. I've already got to deal with Brexit affecting my life and don't think I can handle another 5 years of them fucking it even more.
I am worried about the effects of no deal on Brexit to my business. In is a shame that in the interests of fairness the Tories ridiculous economic policies don't get the scrutiny they deserve,
But it wasn't no. It was "I'll think about it at the time" which, when you only have 10-15 mins to think about it and respond, isn't reassuring.
This is what annoys me, everyone knows Corbyn is against Nuclear War and has been an activist for decades against it, as well as being there protesting against governments against the wars in Iraq and bombing Syria...and yet this is a bad thing to some? It's not a question that's debatable, no one should want to hear yes as an answer to it. In fact the only person in power who comes to mind about pro-nuclear weapons is Trump, does anyone want a politician who wants to be compared to that level? No.
One thing stood out from last night's debate, Corbyn's questions were mostly based on his past (which in perspective is just a man who wants peace by going right to the cause and trying to talk, but the media won't spin it that way), May's questions were everything about right now in the present about things that are affecting us all that they've caused in the last 7 years, and will continue to do so if the Conservatives are in power this time next week.
I'm quite frankly petrified about my future if the Conservatives win, because after 7 years I'm worn out of struggling to live because of their policies and their cuts. I've already got to deal with Brexit affecting my life and don't think I can handle another 5 years of them fucking it even more.
Then why doesn't he say he would never ever use nuclear weapons?! A definite answer would've shut down any more questions but he refused to give a straight answer and the audience and dimbleby had every right to get a straight answer out of him.
It's almost as if Corbyn's past is his only real weak point, which people and the press have every right to expose.
But it wasn't no. It was "I'll think about it at the time" which, when you only have 10-15 mins to think about it and respond, isn't reassuring.
This is what annoys me, everyone knows Corbyn is against Nuclear War and has been an activist for decades against it, as well as being there protesting against governments against the wars in Iraq and bombing Syria...and yet this is a bad thing to some? It's not a question that's debatable, no one should want to hear yes as an answer to it. In fact the only person in power who comes to mind about pro-nuclear weapons is Trump, does anyone want a politician who wants to be compared to that level? No.
One thing stood out from last night's debate, Corbyn's questions were mostly based on his past (which in perspective is just a man who wants peace by going right to the cause and trying to talk, but the media won't spin it that way), May's questions were everything about right now in the present about things that are affecting us all that they've caused in the last 7 years, and will continue to do so if the Conservatives are in power this time next week.
I'm quite frankly petrified about my future if the Conservatives win, because after 7 years I'm worn out of struggling to live because of their policies and their cuts. I've already got to deal with Brexit affecting my life and don't think I can handle another 5 years of them fucking it even more.
Then why doesn't he say he would never ever use nuclear weapons?! A definite answer would've shut down any more questions but he refused to give a straight answer and the audience and dimbleby had every right to get a straight answer out of him.
His answer was pretty simple. He wouldn't ever use nuclear weapons in a first-fire capacity, and would prefer using negotiation before ever reaching that point.
The outrage was because he didn't immediately say 'yes, I'd kill millions of people and destroy the planet in the process.'
Then why doesn't he say he would never ever use nuclear weapons?! A definite answer would've shut down any more questions but he refused to give a straight answer and the audience and dimbleby had every right to get a straight answer out of him.
It's almost as if Corbyn's past is his only real weak point, which people and the press have every right to expose.
Because sadly we have tabloids owned by the likes of the Barclay Brothers & Murdoch etc who will exploit it to make him sound weak, when in reality someone in power who wants peace should be the best damn thing on the planet. The elite are petrified of Corbyn taking away their influence and will do absolute anything to smear him.
Is his past a weak point though? It depends how they spin it, I see his past as the man who's been on the right side of history for the past 30 years, The Sun will tell you he's a terrorist sympathiser instead. Sigh
Comments
However as a bloke said on the wireless yesterday, the only numbers in the Tory manifesto are the page numbers.
Why then are they letting Google and Facebook get away with it? Well, you tell me. Incompetence and lack of resource, I would suggest though.
Actually it would be interesting to hear from @DamoNorthStand on this. His "boss", Sir Martin Sorrell, moved WPP HQ to Dublin. then he moved it back again. Right, Damo?
The irony is that although google have opened up a new 'campus' (i mean campus, what a load utter wank right there), that will house 7,500 employees, they're also busy in an AI arms race to invent technologies that will see 1000s out of a job.
Strength and stability for me would be standing up to these tossers
For those who still deny how ridiculous this corp tax argument is, here is a little test.
Here is a list of brands you may either own, or aspire to own:
VW, BMW, Mercedes-Benz. Miele, Bosch, Siemens. Gardena. Sennheiser. Carl Zeiss Jena: -). Rodenstock. Nivea. Bayer. (etc, etc, look around your own home for further examples)
They all have their HQ in a country where corp.tax rate is currently 29.7%.
Can you name that country?
If you really can't, here is the link, showing that country's recent CIT history.
Socialist basket case, it isn't.
Next...
He gave a straight answer about deals with the snp and condemning all acts of terror which shut down any more questions about that completely.
I think there is a far simpler argument, do you want a country that retains it's international status through trade and economic prosperity or it's ability to blow the shit out of another country while committing indiscriminate genocide ? A country that welcomes international students to it's first class education system that leads through standards and innovation. £80 billion on a missile system, we hope, never be used or revitalizing our manufacturing industry through investment and education?
It seemed to me he wanted to say he wouldn't push the button, but he felt that politically he simply couldn't admit to it, which is a great shame.
The people who want the weapons have not explained to me why every country doesn't want them too, and why some rich countries are OK to not have them.
Lets take the Republic of Ireland for example, probably richer than North Korea, I don't hear them going on about having nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack, or to retaliate if they are attacked.
If you think you know the answer why not, then that will probably help you to understand Corbyn's stance.
The Greens have it right on Nuclear weapons and Trident in my view. Get rid of the lot in the UK, and don't expect the Americans or French or anybody else to use nuclear weapons on behalf of the UK either.
There is a reason why only two have been used in a war so far, and they were two relatively weak nukes (if you can use that term) compared to what we have now. Perhaps people need to be re educated as to their impact, we're not talking bows and arrows here.
Rupert MurdochTeresa May.That and the theory of MAD doesn't work if you say you won't use it..
Saying "BUT AMAGAD THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is a typically lazy response that the right usually reserve for social things that they have no real evidence to support.
One thing stood out from last night's debate, Corbyn's questions were mostly based on his past (which in perspective is just a man who wants peace by going right to the cause and trying to talk, but the media won't spin it that way), May's questions were everything about right now in the present about things that are affecting us all that they've caused in the last 7 years, and will continue to do so if the Conservatives are in power this time next week.
I'm quite frankly petrified about my future if the Conservatives win, because after 7 years I'm worn out of struggling to live because of their policies and their cuts. I've already got to deal with Brexit affecting my life and don't think I can handle another 5 years of them fucking it even more.
It's almost as if Corbyn's past is his only real weak point, which people and the press have every right to expose.
The outrage was because he didn't immediately say 'yes, I'd kill millions of people and destroy the planet in the process.'
Is his past a weak point though? It depends how they spin it, I see his past as the man who's been on the right side of history for the past 30 years, The Sun will tell you he's a terrorist sympathiser instead. Sigh