I don’t think they would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
I don’t think they would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The average salary in the UK is circa £25,000 per year. You don't think most households would be better off financially under Labour, when there will be a guaranteed minimum income, reversal of benefit cuts, an end to benefit sanctions, abolition of zero hour contracts etc etc? Of course such policies would help the majority. Nobody could accuse Corbyn of not helping the poor to average earners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If you could make all those things happen in a vacuum then it would may be a good idea but there are knock on effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aye, and what about the 'knock on effects' of more money for the NHS and education, including increased pay for all those staff, plus civil servants, social workers, prison officers, firefighters, police officers etc? Of course the majority will benefit, as will everybody else as those services improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I won't even be voting Labour, as I'm a member of the Green Party, but I know which party I would prefer to win the election.
Fixed that for you. Nationalised industry would garner a fair bit of support up here imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There has to be a way of paying for all those things as well. I would not say I want Labour to win but I would like them to at least achieve a hung parliament but I think they are too far left to achieve that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I've got it! :idea:
How about putting pressure on the top 1% who own around half of the countries wealth? The same people who have amassed such a wealth through paying their employees as little as possible while contributing ZERO to public services as a result of tax loops that they bribed tory lobbyists to implement/keep in place?
We approach this from different directions, as I don't think they are left enough in some areas, thus I am more comfortable in the Greens. As for 'payment', may I remind you of Tony Benn's adage that "no government in history has ever said they couldn't fight a war because there wasn't enough money. They find the money; so, if we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people. No excuses".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Also in relation to 'paying' for progress, we need to destroy the idea that governments need to pay for spending by taxation, when that simply isn't the case. Despite the nonsense Thatcher used to state, governments are not the same as households i.e. 'pocketbook spending' is not applicable to governments, which have the ability to create money from nothing - see the 2008 banking crisis and bailout. Taxation can be used to keep inflation down, but isn't required to raise revenue for spending. 'The national credit card' etc is total nonsense. In 1945 the country was 'bankrupt' after six years of war, yet we created an NHS, a welfare state, free university education and nationalised key industries. The whole discussion needs reflect the reality, not the myth.
https://youtu.be/4FYS3z45Zqc
Ruth Davidson really chasing the dollars these days.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...mpression=true
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Next she will have her own show on a Russian TV channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Don’t disagree with that. There are far too many tax loopholes. Most of them put there by Gordon Brown right enough who massively over complicated the tax system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not the same. Salmond is no longer a politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait... ITV pay politicians to appear on their political programmes? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Well that explains a lot. I wonder how much they pay them to say whatever they want them to say as well.
Why not? She's probably already receiving sources of funding from there already.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I might actually take a day off work now, the chance to see her face tripping her as the election results in Scotland come in is tempting.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Finally seeing that smug look on her face getting chipped away at with each and every "SNP Gain" will be extremely enjoyable, I wonder if she'll actually defend Boris and co this time around?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Not sure there's a rule that PM has to be a member of either House of Parliament. Possibly just a tradition. So he could go back to writing lies for the Telegraph for his main income, and tell lies for the Government as PM for pin money.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I'm not sure why this isn't a huge problem for the Tories, since 'from elsewhere' almost certainly in practice means 'who are browner'. Have they not twigged this yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
Fife, could you answer my previous question about your criticism of the Electoral Commission please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I believe that it was a problem gettin Alex Douglas - Home into the Commons, and it took a few by elections before it was solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Is it not the job of the electoral commission to over see the election process and how it's handled by the parties? Yet they don't seem to hold any of the main British parties accountable for misinformation in their leaflets used to mislead voters, particularly in Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Of course they have, but inconvenient truths won't attract the voters they're after.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I've wondered this too and there's probably a few reasons as to why but it's probably first and foremost the inability of forward thinking amongst most of them.
Thank you for replying. In short, the answer to your question is no. If any body should be intervening in what you're referring to, it would be the UK Statistics Authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Doesn't always come down to policy proposals. A vast swathe of voters simply don't like Corbyn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50403154
His hopes of seeing the polls narrow in a similar way to 2017 seem like wishful thinking to me. He no longer has that 'surprise' factor of being a bit different. Voters have him sussed now and for many he just comes across as endlessly vague, even a bit dim-witted. Justified or not the allegations of anti-Semitism and habouring terrorist sympathies also tend to stick.
As for policy, both main parties appear to be bidding to outdo each other in spending pledges so Corbyn doesn't really have the 'anti-austerity' card to play either, while the cut-through clarity of Johnson's 'Getting Brexit Done' message leaves Corbyn's muddled approach to Brexit in the shade.
Perhaps most significantly, Corbyn's not up against the hopeless May this time. Her mind-bogglingly inept campaign was as much responsible for Labour doing better than expected last time round as anything Corbyn had to offer.
I like to hear Swinson tell us if push came to shove, would she prefer to see Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. There's no way you'd get a straight answer out of her.
"Neither, we're campaigning for a majority Lib Dem government and once I become PM i'll reverse brexit just like that, without any social repercussions.... blah blah blah, i'm Jo Swinson."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Your post seems remarkably upbeat on the country rejecting a Corbyn government, obviously I don’t know your individual circumstances, but what I can’t understand is working class Tory voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
I won’t be voting labour, but I agree with almost everything they are proposing. The answer to this country’s problems is not another Tory government.
Understandably so. If she admitted preferring either, she'd frighten off potential LD voters, and particularly if she said Corbyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Sturgeon has the luxury of being able to say she'd work with Corbyn because she is appealing to a huge number of ex-Labour voters and isn't trying to win votes from natural Tory voters.
If she said that she'd work with Johnson, it would seriously hurt her. Can you imagine the reaction if she did, even just on here?
Whether she actually would or not if push came to shove is another matter and hopefully it'll never be put to the test.
Been speaking to numerous business owners and they all tell me the same thing. They can't vote Corbyn, because it means higher corporation tax. Apparently the 2010 levels (that Labour are proposing) were just too high. Never mind that the UK already has one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the developed world at the lowest level it has every been in history. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
https://www.figurewizard.com/list-uk...tax-rates.html
But surely by not answering the question she's just as likely to alienate just as many if not more voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Just depends who is wise enough to offer Scotland a referendum first I suppose. Probably the tories, as Labour don’t really want to be in Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Folk who want to vote for her will give her the benefit of the doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
It's the correct way to deal with the question.
Have you stopped beating your wife? The only answer is no answer.
Nobody is going to offer it because Labour can’t get the votes to get us to a hung parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I watched that video and she does not make a very compelling case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
If we take her at her word, why even have any taxation at all if it does not matter? Surely we can just spend what we like?
It’s complete nonsense. The govt has two sources of money, taxation and debt. If it relies too heavily on debt the market will start to charge higher interest for it and there are inflation risks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That just isn't true. Governments do not need to use taxation for spending, since governments have a monopoly on issuing a currency. This only breaks down when a government forfeits its right to a sovereign currency, such as the eurozone. Taxation can be used to keep inflation down, in addition to social goals such as egalitarianism and equality of opportunity, but a government could in theory have zero taxation and maintain all its social spending; it cannot "max out the credit card" as individuals can. However, doing so would cause inflation to sky rocket and trust in the currency to collapse. All currencies work on trust alone: if I gave you a paper note, you believe it has some value, though of course it has no intrinsic value. If we lose that trust, the currency is finished. It's all alchemy and delusion really. When you say 'debt', remember governments borrow from themselves. If I owe myself £100, am I in debt? Governments can borrow from the public via instruments such as government bonds, but that's a choice, they don't have to do that to finance spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You admit that it revolves around trust and I contend that the trust is not there for what you are proposing. It’s never been done successfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Johnson has had an utterly shambolic week but has somehow managed to increase his lead.
We're ****ed.
Johnson just announce that corporation tax cuts that were planned have been cancelled. Money spent on public services. Funny, he used to say corporation tax cuts raised money.[emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Will peerages for Brexit Party stand down’s come back to haunt him ? Like cash for questions all over again. Police must be called in. And Labour a distant 2nd. Give me strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diclonius
Neither party wants to win the election. Both parties know the economy is ducked. Labour are playing a blinder with their Marxist style manifesto. They’ll ensure there’s a majority Tory government when everything implodes and try as he might, Boris can’t prevent it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diclonius
The way that public finances actually work, versus the myth of taxing to spend, must be one of the greatest inaccuracies in the world today. It effects each and every one of us, yet I've never heard a politician discuss the issue accurately. The falsehood keeps being repeated. Perhaps they have also just accepted the narrative that governments must work like households as Thatcher used to claim, when it's a completely false analogy. You and I do not have our own sovereign currency, which changes everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
How about a £6000 pay rise for every worker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/18/labou...share.top.link
Except its not every worker - and its not a full 6kQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
To truly give everyone a £6000 they would need to also do something like up the personal tax threshold - but they wont :greengrin
What is undeniable is that the majority of people in society would be personally better off under Labour than they would under the Tories, and that's before we even discuss the benefits to wider society.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
That is entirely deniable.[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unlike Ozy, I wont argue that point :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Doesn’t matter anyway. They can’t win with Corbyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Christine Jardine positioning the Lib Dems as the new tories on the block in Scotland with this letter.
https://img.techpowerup.org/191118/c...jardinepng.png
She doesn't want Corbyn to win the election, but is happy to scoop up the tory votes in Edinburgh West seeing as the Conservative Party can't win here. :whistle:
Not a mention about Brexit either.....
I cant really disagree with that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Looking at the results in 2017 and she actually got slightly less votes than Mike Crockart in 2015, it was the size of the collapse in the SNP vote that got her in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinbu...s_in_the_2010s
It seems to have been the case in many of the seats the SNP lost in 2017, it wasn't so much a case of votes being lost to other parties but more a case of 2015 voters just not turning up.
How many seats they can get back will depend on how much of that 2015 "tsunami" they can recreate, if they do so in Edinburgh West Jardine's going to rely on some unionist vote transfer.
SNP lost their court case. Scotland will get to watch Johnson and Corbyn get stuck into the SNP without the SNP being able to defend themselves.
A union of equals?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bizarre that Johnson has agreed to h2h with Corbyn when he needs a split remain vote. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Johnson won't see any problem there. Corbyn didn't go to Eton. Just like Emily Maitlis.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Isn't it more likely they'll both ignore the pesky Jocks completely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Don't you start calling me a wife beater too. :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...dc99335749.png
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Based on the assumption of age turnout mentioned above which doesn't seem very realistic at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I would argue that the assumptions are correct. Brexit was swung by the older vote, those who voted Brexit but vote labour will turn away from labour and Corbyn and go to the nearest port for brexiteers, either the Brexit party or Boris.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Or something else entirely.
I have a horrible feeling the silent majority will vote the conservatives in by a landslide.
Does anyone really care about these 'debates'? At least with the Lib Dems and the SNP involved it might have diluted the slanging match that these one-to-one events tend to descend into (witness the appalling Darling v Salmond shoutfests in 2014).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Chairman of Leicester East Labour Party quits, describing Corbyn as "the clown that leads the Labour Party":Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/elec...ost_type=share
It’s like watching question time but nothing from the audience to break up the arguing and no Dimbleby with his big metaphorical stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
Indeed. I also loathe Question Time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
I've never really bought into this "silent majority" idea. I'm thinking this high 65+ turnout includes many people in care homes who won't have a clue that they just voted conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
What a senseless and insulting post. And you won’t have a thing to back it up but it doesn’t stop you just making stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
14-point lead for the Tories according to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...emy-corbyn-new
Yep those pesky old folk, what could they possibly know about anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Pretty disrespectful to brush off anyone over 65 as 'care home' material.
The same silent majority voted No in the referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Otherwise the rest of your post is in pretty poor taste.
My mum dragging my senile grandmother along to vote no was one of the most depressing things I've seen in my life.
Christ, 4 years to go then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
You really need to either go away or think before posting.
It's in bad taste to suggest that electoral fraud happens? :confused:
90%+ of over 65's planning to vote? I'm not buying it at all.
This no mark is all very positive about Scotland being put back in it's box. Doesn't it just warm your heart?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ULFFbGkvKg&feature=youtu.be
In case anybody misses the ITV "debate" later...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJtgZ7oW...pg&name=medium
It wasn't your best joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Who is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my COL-L29 using Tapatalk
Just your average southern tory keeping the colony in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by McS****y
That's just ****ing dire. Get this removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Even by your standards this post is an absolute ****ing shocker. Your are, to put it bluntly, a disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_F
Let's not ruin the mock outrage crew's time to shine :greengrin
What are you on about with the mock outrage crap? It's a crass, insensitive post and if you and the other poster can't see that then you are blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by CloudSquall
To spell it out though, feel free to laugh at my wife while telling her that her Dad was voting for anyone he was told to as his life was wasting away in a care home.
I can’t believe I find myself defending one of Fife’s posts on here, but I’ve personally spoken with people who believe that their elderly relatives, resident in care homes and the like, had votes cast on their behalf without their knowledge.
Quite why Fife considers this would be a crime perpetrated by (or, more accurately, on behalf of) the Conservative Party rather than any other party is beyond me but, given the title of the thread about that Party on this board, his post doesn’t strike me as an allegation worthy of the level of condemnation it has received.
If I may explain.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_F
My mum has power of attorney to over my gran. My gran left school at 8 to help look after her large family and has never been interested in politics. During the indendence referendum my mum made sure she registered for a vote so my mum could effectively have a second vote. It would be fair to say that my gran was not at the time the most mentally acute, nor was she particularly mobile.
I’m all for democracy but it wasn’t a particularly dignified spectacle, and it wouldn’t have been any more dignified had her loving grandson helped her along to put a tick in the yes column.
On GMB Reid showed her true colours. She called the Labour Leader Corbyn but the PM Boris. That’s not even his fecken name ! It’s pathetic and the ‘debate’ tonight will be a shoe-in for Johnston as the producers will make it so. God help us.
It is a well established fact that older voters are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
- far more likely to vote
- far more likely to favour Brexit
- far more likely to reject Indy
- far more likely to be Tories
"Wasting away" is a bit clumsy as well. I'm sure the care home staff don't think their residents live such a horrible existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Its easy to say the wrong thing when sticking up for others
The :confused: wasn't aimed at your post, was more to say that Fife-Hibee's comment probably isn't far from the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
- far more likely to feel the cold in DecemberQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
- far more likely to break bones if they fall
Not really, given I watched it happen and you didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
Anyway, I'll let you bash on with the debate. If this the level of it then I won't be back to read it.
Maybe, maybe not but it is, IMO, completely inappropriate and insensitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_F
No chance Jezza will rip Boris up for erse paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by southsider
Sounds like you think your experience supercedes anything the rest of us have experienced with people in their final years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
If you can't see that the phrase "wasting away" is not a sensitive way to describe a humans decline, I hardly think you're in a position to criticise other people's derogatory descriptions .
Vegetables waste away, humans don't.
tSo is yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
My experience supercedes others? Don't go putting words in my mouth. I made no such claim so don't go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
It was a crap post and I called it out. If you don't agree, fine. But don't go twisting my words. I can't be arsed with word play like that.
- far more likely to get the good biscuits out for visitorsQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I don't think we're getting anywhere with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
I didn't put words in your mouth, I told you that the words you used were equally offensive.
Sorry to hear about your experience, but as I've suggested you're not the only person to go through it.
I'd say 'wasting away' is a pretty fair description of some people's last days, weeks or months even if it's not a particularly cuddly term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
My Granny was under 6 stone when she passed away. She was convinced my Grandad was a stranger who had broken into her home, was unaware she was even at home a lot of the time, hadn't eaten a solid meal in weeks, was being treated for pressure sores, had no mobility and was easy prey for any infections doing the rounds. 'Wasting away' is about the best description I could come up with tbh. It was ecistejce rather than a life.
I accept that many older people are active, fit and well into their last days but the reality is many reach a stage of extreme illness and malnutrition regardless of the care they are receiving.
We started off talking about residents of care homes. To view them all as wasting away is not a very pleasant picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Fact is many live their for twenty years or more. To imply that they are either senile, or terminally ill health is just not correct.
I know that many people who work with the elderly would be upset if it was suggested that their efforts to give their clients fulfilling lives were viewed as futile, as the implication that care home residents are wasting away.
As the discussion has diverted into what people find offensive, it's worth reminding ourselves that is a subjective exercise, and recognise that what is a normal figure of speech to one person, could be quite horrific to another.
Pleasant picture or otherwise it's true in the eyes of 2 people on this thread who watched it happen first hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
That's not suggesting an individual experience supercedes others. If it is the case then I suppose the same argument could be thrown right back at you.
Having read back I can't see any post which suggest ALL care home residents are 'wasting away'. It was quite clearly given as a personal account of a personal set of circumstances.
I am very confused by this. Apparently Fife Hibees Post was offensive because he made an edgy joke that some people find in poor taste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
but when someone else uses language that might upset others, then that's ok.
Help me out, I'm missing the point, why is the first post so offensive compared to the second?
I'm not being arsey, I just don't get what separates them.
As I said, vegetables waste away, humans don't. There is a lot more to us than flesh and bone.
What, like bulldog spirit, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
(Otherwise agree with your post.)