Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,254]

1 hour ago, Spade_Cooley said:

You see I've been trying to work out if the Labour party does split into two, and those two camps could best be described as a Blairite continuity party and a Corbynista NUS/Stop the War/Unite gang.... who'd be the two leaders?

 

I have the horrid feeling that the obviously choice for the former is this guy:

 

Or his wife Yvette Cooper who used to be pretty effective when up against May at the dispatch box as shadow home Secretary and even more recently since May became PM. 

[Paul Bearer 5,853]

2 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

How we're being conned:

 

Tories:

Brexit: Every vote strengthens our negotiating position. Quite clearly bollocks. The Tories will proceed along the same lines as now, Europe won't give two hoots what Joe and Jane put in the ballot box and won't change their position either.

The Opposition: They are unelectable in their own right. This is propaganda. They are banking on Labour voters to shrug their shoulders and simply to stay at home.

The Economy: Can't tell you about tax rises. The smokescreen of Brexit means this is the real issue. They will hit the poor, the sick, the disabled and the middle class as usual, while spending mahoosive amounts on overseas aid and nuclear missiles.

The Regions: we love you and everything will work for the whole UK. Will it balls. Powers coming back from Europe will be retained at Westminster rather than devolved as they should be and see that money we can spend here rather than sending to Europe? The regions can go stuff, while they prop up business in the South East of England.

 

Labour:

Democracy: We are on the side of the people, not the Establishment. No doubt this is what Corbyn believes, but as a party they are still quite clearly Blairite trash who would rather have a Lobster dinner with the great and the good rather than hand out soup to the homeless.

Brexit: The people's vote must be respected. Every time they mention this, it sounds more and more like we will be outside Europe but still have essentially the same deal as now. For example, people who have job offers can come here. WTF?

Housing: We will build homes for those who can't get on the ladder and more social housing. Yet they still maintain a policy of selling off Council housing. And house building declined under Labour who also turned a blind eye to company blacklisting of workers in the construction industry.

 

LibDems:

Coalition: We won't form a coalition with any party after the election. The fuck they won't. And they'll abandon their request for a second referendum on Europe to get it. After the votes have been cast in the unlikely event of a hung Parliament, they'll prop up the Tories again in the name of stability (remember 2010?).

Brexit: see above.

Other Policies: haven't a clue, do you?

 

UKIP:

Brexit: We still have a job to do. Nup, you don't, that ship has sailed and you already get up the noses of Europeans.

Immigrants: We must integrate people who come here into the community, let's ban face veils. Two points: or what? Deport them? Lock them up? Also forgetting there are a lot of people who'd rather certain communities be tolerated rather than welcomed. This sounds more like a policy the Borg from Star Trek came up with rather than decent British people - assimilate, assimilate or exterminate.

 

Agree 100%. Stealing this and putting it on my Facebook thingy. 

[Deathray 2,940]

4 hours ago, charon said:

Heard the stat today that 2/3rds of Labour voters were 'Remain', yet 2/3rds of their seats are in areas that voted 'out'. They're fucked

 

A lot of areas that voted out are red rosette on a pig type constituencies though. 

[msc 18,038]

Yes, like, err, Wales...

[YoungWillz 19,885]

Theresa May will not raise VAT if she wins the election.

 

Interesting. Why is she not promising to abolish it? It's an EU tax.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,181]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

Theresa May will not raise VAT if she wins the election.

 

Interesting. Why is she not promising to abolish it? It's an EU tax.

Because, if she did, she would have to revert back to its previous incarnation of purchase tax.

By all means rip a bollock or three off of her but its ridiculous, in this case, to be critical when there has been VAT, in one form or another, for 77 years!!

The fact that how we levied and collected the Tax changed in 1973 because we joined the EEC is a pretty weak argument for bashing her.

Then again had the EU still been functioning and working as the old EEC did millions of people who voted to leave would have voted to remain.

Thats lifes shit for you.

[YoungWillz 19,885]

1 hour ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Because, if she did, she would have to revert back to its previous incarnation of purchase tax.

By all means rip a bollock or three off of her but its ridiculous, in this case, to be critical when there has been VAT, in one form or another, for 77 years!!

The fact that how we levied and collected the Tax changed in 1973 because we joined the EEC is a pretty weak argument for bashing her.

Then again had the EU still been functioning and working as the old EEC did millions of people who voted to leave would have voted to remain.

Thats lifes shit for you.

I'm not bashing her. I'm asking the question.

 

If they retain "VAT" that is an EU tax. The EU will expect it to be paid to them. It'll have to be changed.

 

Also, once VAT is on something, you can't remove it under EU law. So "VAT" or purchase tax or whatever it may be called can be removed or diminished on things once we leave. So the question remains, why not promise a lessening of it or abolition?

 

Perhaps because she can confidently say "we won't raise VAT" when in fact they'll just rename it and raise it when it's called something else?

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,181]

14 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

I'm not bashing her. I'm asking the question.

 

If they retain "VAT" that is an EU tax. The EU will expect it to be paid to them. It'll have to be changed.

 

Also, once VAT is on something, you can't remove it under EU law. So "VAT" or purchase tax or whatever it may be called can be removed or diminished on things once we leave. So the question remains, why not promise a lessening of it or abolition?

 

Perhaps because she can confidently say "we won't raise VAT" when in fact they'll just rename it and raise it when it's called something else?

There is no point playing around with the semantics of it all.

VAT is a tax and Purchase Tax was a Tax.

Im not sure where you have found the information that states we pay VAT collected in the UK to the EU?

I cant find that info anywhere,ive assumed that VAT was introduced in 73 as a way of harmonising how Europe levied duties on goods and how it was levied.

She could rename it Shirley Thompson, if she likes, but it will still be a tax.

To be fair, she cannot PROMISE to reduce VAT anymore than she can PROMISE tax cuts and 22% pay rises for all NHS staff.

Conversely, Corbyn has promised pay rises for NHS staff and hasnt told us how he would fund it or how he would fund the following claims from Teachers, Firemen, The Police, Council employees and all other public sector workers who will, naturally, say 'If you can pay the Nurses and end the pay cap, you can do it for us coz we is well deservin too, innit'

Like ive said, they are all fucking useless.

You just have to decide who you think is the least useless.

 

[msc 18,038]

To give the devil their due, the "how will you pay for this" question always annoys me when its asked of opposition parties. They don't have the budget books, so how the fuck would they know?

 

Though many of them would get round this if they weren't all shit at debating beyond the talking points they memorized that morning.

[YoungWillz 19,885]

Oh they are all useless he he.

 

Semantics? That's exactly what politicians do! Remember NI contributions? "Oh we won't raise them, oh we didn't mean those NI contributions, oh shit the public have got us, fuck fuck fuck, let's have an election" - semantics.

 

So when she says no rise to VAT, I do and I don't believe her. On a purely semantic level of course.

[YoungWillz 19,885]

Also, is a purchase tax justifiable once we leave the EU?

 

I mean in some cases I can see the reasoning. Say you wanted to be environmentally friendly. You could justify imposing some kind of tax on polythene packaging and the like. But why would you impose it on cereal bars?

 

And why on earth would you impose it on services? Maybe only in a country where the vast majority of GDP is based on services, like the UK. Seems odd to charge it though. I'd like to hear a justification for it rather than just "revenue for the Government to pay for things".

 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,181]

55 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Also, is a purchase tax justifiable once we leave the EU?

 

I mean in some cases I can see the reasoning. Say you wanted to be environmentally friendly. You could justify imposing some kind of tax on polythene packaging and the like. But why would you impose it on cereal bars?

 

And why on earth would you impose it on services? Maybe only in a country where the vast majority of GDP is based on services, like the UK. Seems odd to charge it though. I'd like to hear a justification for it rather than just "revenue for the Government to pay for things".

 

Pesonally, id like to hear fuck all more from any of them.

Im not too sure how i havent kicked in my TV screen so far.

I truly struggle to understand those that 'havent made up their minds yet' when its clear what they all stand for and they are clearly bullshitters.

If you dont know how you are going to vote by now you shouldnt be allowed to vote and should just be left to be cared for in the community.

I want this fucking election done and dusted NOW!!!!!

[Deathray 2,940]

Someone had the bright idea of making a site where people could advertise their political party ahead of the general election with brief messages; ideally focussing on policy.

 

It's went as well as you'd expect with piss-take messages flooding it.

[Deathray 2,940]

Does anyone know when charges are actually likely to be brought against the two dozen Tory MPs involved in the whole election fraud scandal and there associates? Is it before or after the election?

[msc 18,038]

Yeah, it'll be swept under the carpet and never happen.

[Deathray 2,940]

6 minutes ago, msc said:

Yeah, it'll be swept under the carpet and never happen.

 

I doubt it they've got this far with the allegations and already been fined £70,000 by the electoral watchdog so I think it's inevitable and why she called the election (she'd lose 12 MPs immediately, potentially reducing her majority to just 3 - low enough another election would be inevitable anyway and probably harder to win. I'm just wondering if the MPs get arrested on the 7th/8th June whether that Tory lead could dissipate and let Labour in.

[YoungWillz 19,885]

Amber Rudd - we have fewer police officers and less crime. We are doing policing on the cheap and it's working.

 

Really Amber? Really? Here's some basic economics translated to this for you.

 

Fewer police officers = fewer people to report crime to.

Fewer police officers = fewer people to record crime.

Fewer police officers = less chance to prevent crime happening.

 

So we simply cannot judge whether there is in fact less crime.

 

It's like having fewer tax collectors. Less chance of collecting and enforcing tax. You are cutting that too.  

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,181]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

Amber Rudd - we have fewer police officers and less crime. We are doing policing on the cheap and it's working.

 

Really Amber? Really? Here's some basic economics translated to this for you.

 

Fewer police officers = fewer people to report crime to.

Fewer police officers = fewer people to record crime.

Fewer police officers = less chance to prevent crime happening.

 

So we simply cannot judge whether there is in fact less crime.

 

It's like having fewer tax collectors. Less chance of collecting and enforcing tax. You are cutting that too.  

Aye, that almost overshadowed Diane Abbott...........almost

[YoungWillz 19,885]

7 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

Aye, that almost overshadowed Diane Abbott...........almost

Always sounds as though she is giving a considered answer and when it comes it's inevitably wrong!

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,181]

1 minute ago, YoungWillz said:

Always sounds as though she is giving a considered answer and when it comes it's inevitably wrong!

You would have to go a long way to find a more inept, shit politician.

They could have had the Tories on the rack today but, instead, they gave them 5 own goals with fuck all chance of being able to score six.

Unbelievable, almost.

[msc 18,038]

Diane Abbott is one of the Tory party's greatest electoral assets of late.

[Youwanticewiththat 611]

1 hour ago, msc said:

Diane Abbott is one of the Tory party's greatest electoral assets of late.

Never forget she and El Corbino were an 'item', never forget.  I swear she rode Portillo's train too the rampant wench.  Pass the sick bucket.

[Deathray 2,940]

1 hour ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

You would have to go a long way to find a more inept, shit politician.

They could have had the Tories on the rack today but, instead, they gave them 5 own goals with fuck all chance of being able to score six.

Unbelievable, almost.

 

If Diane Abbot hadn't stuck her gob in her mouth again the story of the day might have been a Tory MP suggesting that the permanently disabled could get better.

[YoungWillz 19,885]

So Theresa's had tea with the Queen and 2015-2017 is over.

 

She says what we need is her - a strong leader, prepared to negotiate hard and walk away with no deal rather than a bad deal. But she admits in the same speech that if we don't get a deal, the consequences will be serious for the UK. What an idiot. So how is no deal better?

 

Maybe what we don't need is a leader who said all along "I want to remain in the EU" but now says "Fuck you Europe, and by the way, please don't hurt us because we told you to go fuck yourselves".

 

Maybe we want someone who can use diplomacy, soft power and understanding, rather than someone who says it is our way or the highway. Unfortunately we don't have anyone like that at Westminster. They're stupid politicians, the whole rag bag lot of them.

[Grim Up North 3,592]

I can't quite decide where I sit on this.

 

Theresa May did not vote for Brexit - the UK did 52% to 48%.

 

She did however apply for and get the job of leading us through the negotiations and the process.

She has now chosen to reapply for her own job. I'm okay with that.

 

From a media perspective, and many other perspectives, she's onto a bit of a loser because there are 27 countries against her and even those people supposedly on her side (in that they are part of the UK) like SNP are also against her because in actual fact their country within the UK voted against Brexit. 

From a process perspective what is happening has never been done before so this must be difficult with the added complexity that part of the EU is joined to part of the UK but no-one wants a hard border between the two parts.

From a negotiation perspective it's that 27 v 1 scenario again except with all the internal UK political backbiting as mentioned above.

 

All in all it's a very tricky situation. Rather her then me.

 

But also, as far as I'm concerned, rather her than Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Angus Robertson or whoever is the leader of the UKIP party now, and I think that is how most people will view it.