You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
But is Corbyn a moron?
Who's this bloke I asked her
Cooooorbyn , she replied
Not THAT puff, I said dismayed
Yes but he's no puff she cried
(He's more of a man than you'll ever be)
I thought the under 30 age group was where the Corbyn fan club was supposed to be located?
If he can't get that age group to vote for him, then the result does seem like a foregone conclusion.
A hard Brexit and 5 years of Boris it is then
Most my friends are holding their noses and voting Labour (with some Green). We hate that Magic Grandad will count it was a vote for him, but we actually have some very good local Labour MPs.
Del
Subscriber
On corruption – there is no doubt at all that the majority of MPs are corrupt crooks
Does that include the SNP representatives, just out of interest? Or the greens?
There is certainly some dodgy doings amongst the SNP including the old revolving door. My guess would be on a par with the recent labour intake ie much less so than the tories. so the usual bungs of a few thousand here and there, the odd bit of fraudulent expenses. Not the massive bribes of tens of thousands or millions that old school labour and the tories were up to
Greens I think are pretty clean.
Holyrood is cleaner but still far from clean
Probably fair
But is Corbyn a moron? Where did they get the idea that he was?
Mainly from being told he's an idiot rather than looking at stuff themselves.
Repeat after me… “Corbyn and his Straight Left team are not the problem… the perception people have of them is.”
ENGAGE REALITY FILTERS
Look, Corbyn can not rely on Milne & Murray to run things and not expect to look like a puppet flapping around in the wind while the hard left millionaires pull his strings. There are lots of good brains in the Labour movement he could have used, rather than have a communist resign his party to come over and help. The policies in the manifesto should be being welcomed across society, they are only “left wing” in the way that the leading European countries are left wing… but people have to trust the leader to vote for the party… and people do not trust Corbyn or his core team.
Anyway… vote Labour… the alternative is a metaphorical kick in the balls for all of us.
In the same way, going on about workers rights, increased trade union negotiating power and workers representation on boards is probably fine in most peoples minds. In theory. Then they take one look at Len McClusky and realise that what that actually means is handing loads of power over to the likes of him. And they know exactly what he'll do with it
A man who recently gave an interview praising Derek Hatton and the Militant Tendency and going all misty-eyed over the days of flying pickets and power cuts while he'd call everyone out on strike at the drop of a hat
And McClusky called for George Galloway to be welcomed back to Labour.
going all misty-eyed over the days of flying pickets and power cuts while he’d call everyone out on strike at the drop of a hat
And let's not forget McDonald this morning on Today failing/refusing to give a straight answer about whether they'd try to legislate to allow secondary picketing. Suggesting only that Labour would defend people's right to withdraw their labour.
^^^
I mean yeah, obviously, to most of the above. Moron? His academic record speaks for itself*... Whatever, I'm sticking a labour poster in the window and hoping the manifesto gets a bit of traction. I'm in a two-way lab tory marginal with an excellent labour MP who has a several hundred majority. Vote Labour or get Boris should be sufficiently compelling to get even the most fastidious/self-indulgent to put their cross where it might actually do something.
*dropped out of north london poly. Not that that necessarily means he's thick but other data-points are available.
Suggesting only that Labour would defend people’s right to withdraw their labour.
And quite right too. Striking, or rather the threat of it, is the most powerful tool of the worker to prevent being ****** over by their employers. The reason we have zero hours contracts, pay rates at less than the living wage, and other things working people suffer from is that employers have had carte blanche to do what they like with almost nothing to stop them.
All expenses on line and not paid without receipt.
As already happens.
Mefty – are you sure they are no longer allowed to claim for buying a house on expenses?
yes
efty – are you sure they are no longer allowed to claim for buying a house on expenses?
They can still claim interest though, can't they? So they could take an interest only mortgage, pay nothing, sell property and pocket the gain in price, without having paid a penny in the interim/
Nope
Nope
Thank god they closed that loophole. About time. Might explain why Osborne etc flounced out in huff.
They did it about 10 years ago
if the working people of Bolton choose brexit over a manifesto that will change their lives then quite frankly they deserve everything they get, and I’ll go and stand next to Rayban in the ‘working class people are idiots’ camp.
DazH, I don’t think it’s just the working class people - it’s just some of them are infected with the same type of thinking as the some of the Tory middle classes. We are Britain, we are exceptional, the people fought two world wars so they know better than everyone else, we deserve better than everyone else, **** experts, swots and education. Etc etc etc
The working classes are just the most obvious case because they are the ones that suffer the most from our own deranged national psyche.
I think the conclusion there is simply that Mike needs to read the memos a bit more carefully
Mefty - have they now removed the ability to claim for small items without a receipt?
Its still a disgusting fiddle and the amounts some MPs claim are clearly inflated. same as a number are fiddling the "rental only" bit
Did anyone hear the bloke that earns 80k+ get angry about being labelled a member of the top 5% of earners to the point that he actually accused Labour of lying last night in BBCQT? Blatantly got wealth conflated with earnings it seems, and reminded me of a TJ vs the world thread on here a few years ago.
Sad thing was, he got applause for accusing Labour of being liars, and there will be a lot of people who will just remember that. It’s how fake news is born...
He’s an IT consultant apparently.
What he actually said that earning over 80 grand a year put him “nowhere near even being in the top 50% of earners”
He got cheered because, obviously, Everyone earns over 80 grand in Bolton 🙄
It is a hell of a trick, though, isn’t it?
I mean, De Pfeffel is actually managing to convince people not to vote for someone who will tax people with more money than they could ever spend and instead make them poorer and have to work harder and longer....TO THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WITH MORE MONEY THAN THEY COULD EVER SPEND.
And he is a philandering, lying, turd who would do or say anything so long as it furthers his ambition or gets his leg over.
Why doesn’t Corbyn just go for the ****ing jugular? Why doesn’t he shout De Pfeffel down about the suppressed Russian interference report? Why doesn’t he bring up the Arcuri thing over and over again?
You have to play dirty.
Did anyone hear the bloke that earns 80k+ get angry about being labelled a member of the top 5% of earners to the point that he actually accused Labour of lying last night in BBCQT?
Seen it on the BBC website earlier. What kind of roaster thinks £80k a year is less than what half the UK population makes?
He'll be fainting once he finds out that'll put him well into the top 1% earners of the world and therefore he is part of the problem. Prick.
I will never vote labour. They won't even admit to a problem with anti semitism, let alone deal with it. That issue seems to have been lost in all this.
It is a hell of a trick, though, isn’t it?
I mean, De Pfeffel is actually managing to convince people not to vote for someone who will tax people with more money than they could ever spend and instead make them poorer and have to work harder and longer….TO THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WITH MORE MONEY THAN THEY COULD EVER SPEND.
And he is a philandering, lying, turd who would do or say anything so long as it furthers his ambition or gets his leg over.
Why doesn’t Corbyn just go for the **** jugular? Why doesn’t he shout De Pfeffel down about the suppressed Russian interference report? Why doesn’t he bring up the Arcuri thing over and over again?
You have to play dirty.
Isn’t part of the problem that we don’t tax based on regional living costs? 80k in Bolton is a pretty much a **** tonne of money - 80k in London is still middle class but that can all quite easily disappear even if you are living in a shit box flat. So taxation creates a huge North/South divide in terms of what is and isn’t culturally acceptable.
Maybe the answer is more devolution and more regional taxation and spending power?
You have to play dirty.
Kinder, gentler politics. Innit.
Isn’t part of the problem that we don’t tax based on regional living costs?
I'm confused. Do you want to tax more or less the higher the living costs of the region?
Grandads getting a right grilling on QT.
Nice to get an update on the situation in Bolivia though
I’m confused. Do you want to tax more or less the higher the living costs of the region?
communities should be able to decide what level of spending and taxation is acceptable to them. It seems to me that some areas could tax and spend more if it weren’t for high cost living areas voting against it. That turns people against each other, I do not see the issue of taxing people based on their purchasing power.
It should be about what is right for the local conditions, if people in one area can afford to pay more tax then they can choose to do so?
Still confused.
I do not see the issue of taxing people based on their purchasing power.
Like having the purchasing power to live in a high cost of living area?
I mean, De Pfeffel is actually managing to convince people not to vote for someone who will tax people with more money than they could ever spend and instead make them poorer and have to work harder and longer….
De Pfeffel? Is that the Flemish princess standing in Middlesbrough for Labour?
No, hang on, that’s Lauren De Thibault De Boesinghe.
Grandads getting a right grilling on QT.
I thought he was actually very good, although I didnt see it all.
Nice to get an update on the situation in Bolivia though
It's the talk of every doorstep in Sunderland, didn't you know?
It wasn't Corbyn who brought up Bolivia
Rayban - even in london £80 000 is a lot of money and makes you rich. Again you show your complete lack of understanding of how those less fortunate than you live. Please be a little more aware.
What kind of roaster thinks £80k a year is less than what half the UK population makes?
Plenty on here think that riches like that do not mean you are rich. As one again shown on this thread and many others.
No TJ, your answer just shows up your own biases - I never said you weren't rich, I even stated you are still middle class on that income, you are not poor, however;
You would need around 4,635.34£ in London to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 2,700.00£ in Bolton (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Cost of Living Plus Rent Index to compare cost of living. This assumes net earnings (after income tax). You can change the amount in this calculation. b
So you'd need around £80k a year to have the same standard of living as someone on around £43k a year in Bolton. That dude in Bolton can objectively afford to pay a lot more tax than someone on £80k in London, what may seem fair to people from Bolton may not seem fair to people from London. If local government has more power to set certain levels of taxation and public spending, we wouldn't have such nasty polarization in this country and people would feel more connected to politics - it would be more local and more real.
You do realise that my taxation and devolution argument is much the same as the one you use to argue for an independent Scotland right?
Like having the purchasing power to live in a high cost of living area?
Or because they were born in Lodnon and had to earn that kind of money to have a family?
Having a high income doesn’t equal being rich.
Let’s say a couple owning two city centre flats and letting one out. Both earning slightly above average incomes. Say £25-30k ish.
And a single professional, renting in London and earning £80k
Who’s better off?
elefant^^^ - that's her husband's surname so your comment is disingenuous.
Why not focus on the (multi) millionaire champagne socialists - Corbyn and his closest acolytes.
Wealth is not the same as income. 80k is a fair whack though.
Wealth is not the same as income. 80k is a fair whack though.
You could be a billionaire in no time if you had a modest house.
modest house
Long, loose fitting curtains?
billionaire in no time
In geological terms, maybe...
BBC Question Time for the leaders ... crikey. 😬
Swinson is having a shocker
No Rayban - you still do not get it. £80 000 per year makes you rich
communities should be able to decide what level of spending and taxation is acceptable to them. It seems to me that some areas could tax and spend more if it weren’t for high cost living areas voting against it.
As for this - how to increase inequalities and set folk against each other
Jambo - the guy in london still has a lot more money - that makes him richer.
Jeepers how can you guys defend this? Peopole earning multiples of the national average wage are amoungst the richest few % of the country. Just because you have no experience of others that does not mean they do not exist. When you earn more than 95% of the country you are rich.
I like Sturgeon, we need to move the capital to Edinburgh.
No Rayban – you still do not get it. £80 000 per year makes you rich
18k a year makes you rich on a global scale as well - considering the global median annual household income is $9,733. This is the logical conclusion of your argument.
As for this – how to increase inequalities and set folk against each other
I'm not saying London shouldn't help support the rest of the country, there should be a baseline national tax agreed by everybody - and then there should be more leeway to adjust for local conditions.
Do you think we should repeal all of Scotlands devolved tax powers then? I didn't take you for a loyalist TJ!
Jambo – the guy in london still has a lot more money – that makes him richer.
Are you sure about that?
£80k gross, net ~£55k
2* 30k gross, net ~£48k, plus income from that rental property.
Do you feel rich?
Swinson is having a shocker
😄 she looks desperate but me think her answers are to target Labour voters.
Oh here we go ... PM BoJo ... 😬
When you earn more than 95% of the country you are rich.
Worked hard, got paid well. Good for them.
18k a year makes you rich on a global scale as well
Yes it does. Which also highlights the bizzare notion that earning 80K in the UK doesn't make you rich hilarious. Are you so pampered and soft that you can't see how good you would have it compared to everyone else?
Yes it does. Which also highlights the bizzare notion that earning 80K in the UK doesn’t make you rich hilarious. Are you so pampered and soft that you can’t see how good you would have it compared to everyone else?
But the idea that someone scraping by on circa 18k with a family, in a zero contract hours job, is somehow rich is patently absurd and I think TJ would agree. Living standards are all relative to local conditions and purchasing power.
If you wanted to massively tax people on 18k and transfer that wealth to the developing world, I'd be down with that though - as I'd love to see the confused nativist outrage.
I would be greatly entertained by all the people who think that wealth should only be transferred to themselves because they are white British and are entitled to it.
Yes, Swinson had a shocker.
Sturgeon performed well - as she usually does.
Corbyn performed reasonably.
Johnson, so far, poor; usual bluster and disinclination to address direct questions.
tjagain
Member
Rayban – even in london £80 000 is a lot of money and makes you rich. Again you show your complete lack of understanding of how those less fortunate than you live. Please be a little more aware.
What kind of roaster thinks £80k a year is less than what half the UK population makes?
Plenty on here think that riches like that do not mean you are rich. As one again shown on this thread and many others.
80k in London is not rich. You'd be lucky to be able to afford a mortgage on a one bedroom flat in a crappy part of the city on that money. I'm not even sure that 80k down here in the Westcountry is rich - most of my friends earn around that and I'd describe them as no more than well off. They're not driving around in Porsches or living in mansions.
You can carry on using your own definitions of words, like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
...but don't expect anyone else to agree with you.
JP
**** me! Are you really that unaware? Even scraping by on circa 18k with a family in UK puts you ahead of most of the world in just about every metric. I'm on 52k a year in the UK and not a day goes by without me knowing just how good I have it compared to well over 99% of the worlds population. Saying that someone on 80k in London with access to clean drinking water, transport, entertainment, healthcare, housing, heating and electricity and everything else that comes with that isn't that well off because they can't afford to spend the same as someone on the top 0.001% is insane.
CaptainFlashheart
Member
Worked hard, got paid well. Good for them.
What about the people who work just as hard, but don't get paid well?
Or do only the well off work hard?
**** me! Are you really that unaware? Even scraping by on circa 18k with a family in UK puts you ahead of most of the world in just about every metric. I
Of course it does.
Try telling people on 18k they are rich and should pay more tax to send aid to the developing world - see how that works out for you.
Saying that someone on 80k in London with access to clean drinking water, transport, entertainment, healthcare, housing, heating and electricity and everything else that comes with that isn’t that well off because they can’t afford to spend the same as someone on the top 0.001% is insane.
Objectively though, that person in Bolton can afford to pay double the amount in terms of taxation yes? What is your ethical reason for not taxing that person more than someone who cannot pay as much in London?
JJP the west country is one of the lowest wage parts of England. Lots of minimum wage work in tourism and rural work generally. There are also all the nurses, paramedics, teachers, care workers, shop workers etc etc
Jambo - of course I am and I know it.
JP
Utter nonsense £80 000 a year even in london puts you in the top 5% of earners in the country - that makes you rich by any objective standard. You may not feel rich - but you are.
This is how things are so distorted in this country. the idea that you can be amongst the highers earners in the country and not be rich. Some of you guys are so divorced from reality and whats worse you have no understanding of how skewed your world view is!
The reason for the high property prices in London is the high wages - not the other way round!
Objectively though, that person in Bolton can afford to pay double the amount in terms of taxation yes? What is your ethical reason for not taxing that person more than someone who cannot pay as much in London?
More utter nonsesne Of ourse the person in london can pay as much tax. they earn the same amount!
The reason for the high property prices in London is the high wages – not the other way round!
Oh, I thought it was the housing density and under supply!
Evidence that wages drove it? And how is that the fault of someone who was born into London?
More utter nonsesne Of ourse the person in london can pay as much tax. they earn the same amount!
Okay TJ, do you agree then that Westminster should revoke all of Scotlands devolved taxation powers?
I'll bet my balls the proportion of people living in Bolton on 80k a year is pretty negligible.
I’ll bet my balls the proportion of people living in Bolton on 80k a year is pretty negligible.
All the more reason to tax them more then.
Oh, I thought it was the housing density and under supply!
One room rental in a shared house in Zone 2 rental is £850 per month as I was told recently.
All the more reason to tax them more then.
🤔
TJ also it's really because of constrained supply of property. Which are good reasons for decentralisation by investing in the rest of the UK and by increasing supply by building housing - including council housing
Evidence that wages drove it?
What do you think people started moving there for in huge numbers in the first place?
rayban it's both.
Is anybody else watching the leaders QT?
Is anybody else watching the leaders QT?
Yes, but there is nothing new apart from letting the audience let off steam ...
What do you think people started moving there for in huge numbers in the first place?
They haven't moved there in large numbers, they actually moved out - London has simply been recovering it's lost population since because it's a large center of employment. If house prices were simply about wages, then the prices would be in proportion to the increase in local wages, they aren't - there are clear supply pressures on the prices.
The population density has not recovered to pre-1939, houses had either been destroyed by the war, slum clearances, became decrepit or due to HMO regulations cannot fit as many people in - since then not enough houses have been built to keep up with the rebound in population. 1939 - Londons population was 8,615,05, with 13,857 people per KM^2. In 2001 it was 7,172,036 with a population density of 11,536 per KM^2.
rayban it’s both.
Agreed.
Utter nonsense £80 000 a year even in london puts you in the top 5% of earners in the country – that makes you rich by any objective standard. You may not feel rich – but you are.
This is how things are so distorted in this country. the idea that you can be amongst the highers earners in the country and not be rich. Some of you guys are so divorced from reality and whats worse you have no understanding of how skewed your world view is!
No - you're so brainwashed with your own little brand of socialism that you are completely unable to be pragmatic or objective. Witness the fact that your objections to my argument make no attempt to counter any of the points I raised; you just continue with the ad hominem logical fallacies.
It's rather sad, but if the viewpoints you espouse are representative of the Labour Party, I almost want the Tories to win this election. I say this as a firm remainer and someone whose political viewpoints are well left of centre, so I suggest you go and have a good think about that.
JP
£80K in London is peanut ...
Rayban your viewpoints are right of centre as can clearly be seen by the utter pish you spout. You want high earners to pay less tax, you scream and shout "class war" at any attempt to redistibute weealth or to reduce the privedge the rich have, you think we are highly taxed and you think someone earning more than 95% of the country is not rich and you claim to be left of centre?
Why on earth do you link me with the labour party? I am a dark green politically. Haven't voted labour in 15 years now.
Rayban your viewpoints are right of centre as can clearly be seen by the utter pish you spout. You want high earners to pay less tax, you scream and shout “class war” at any attempt to redistibute weealth or to reduce the privedge the rich have, you think we are highly taxed and you think someone earning more than 95% of the country is not rich and you claim to be left of centre?
That's all bollocks and you know that, I have not claimed that those earning more should pay less tax. You have completely failed to see any nuance in my argument and instead gone straight to assuming that what I am trying to do, is make a case for reducing redistributive practices - because the logical endpoint of your own argument is ridiculous.
If more devolved taxation is good for Scotland, it's good for other parts of the UK as well. It could even help those areas be more competitive in comparison to London, if the locals chose to undercut London by reducing corporation tax. The point being, it would be for locals to decide, as long as each state had a nationally agreed taxation obligation (so that say, London was still a net contributor to state based wealth redistribution).
Don't assume you know what my political beliefs are, they aren't fixed and never will be.
Rayban if you devolve tax policy then you have to have regional Govt as per Scotland and you also have devolve control over expenditure - health, education social care, etc - same as Scotland
Sounds like a lot of referendums, regional MPs, regional bureaucracy...
Rayban if you devolve tax policy then you have to have regional Govt as per Scotland and you also have devolve control over expenditure – health, education social care, etc – same as Scotland
Sounds like a lot of referendums, regional MPs, regional bureaucracy…
But that is what is missing in this country, peoples connection to politics and sense of agency. The yanks have a population of 300+ million and have 50 states - each with strong local powers and yet we cannot have stronger regional powers?
The current system has everyone arguing with each other due to their own local concerns, it's paralyzing the country and causing it to be an inward looking, navel gazing, arse sniffing, hateful and angry backwater.
Rayban if you devolve tax policy then you have to have regional Govt as per Scotland and you also have devolve control over expenditure – health, education social care, etc – same as Scotland
Only if you devolve it on a regional basis. Local authorities could be used in a much more meaningful way with the creation of local income taxes for example.