Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. " What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you’re as rich as Sunak’s the lives of normal, let alone poor, people are so far distant he can’t possibly have the first inkling of what they are like." People like to vote for this though. Just look at the stick Rayner gets for not people a posh Etonian. She just has a normal accent, and people freak out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x" Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people!" It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why?" If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x" Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? " Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government." I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. " It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x" I suspect that Starmer would have far more in common with Sunak and Johnson than he would with 99% of the population. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on." I'm not saying they are but I'm saying they cannot be worse. Highest tax burden since WWII, from the party that prides itself on tax cutting. It's a joke. If they were going to improve the economy why haven't they, they've had 14 years, enough is enough. And using your argument, how do you know Labour won't better, because you haven't said why? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on.I'm not saying they are but I'm saying they cannot be worse. Highest tax burden since WWII, from the party that prides itself on tax cutting. It's a joke. If they were going to improve the economy why haven't they, they've had 14 years, enough is enough. And using your argument, how do you know Labour won't better, because you haven't said why? Mrs x" I agree that the Tories have been awful. It is as you say too late for them to promise a load of things that they have failed to deliver on for the past fourteen years. They have failed to deliver for their voters, and must pay the price. I’m all in favour of a Labour government, though wouldn’t vote for them myself. The country isn’t going to improve until it has faced economic collapse, and Labour is the party most likely to deliver that collapse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? " No, I just want suitable qualified people. How they got that qualification does not bother me, just that they can demonstrate a certain level of intelligence. The difference then is whether they can demonstrate some sort of moral judgements over those they are making decisions for. They actually work for us but too many are self serving, working for themselves and their mates. The PPE scandal is just one such example. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on.I'm not saying they are but I'm saying they cannot be worse. Highest tax burden since WWII, from the party that prides itself on tax cutting. It's a joke. If they were going to improve the economy why haven't they, they've had 14 years, enough is enough. And using your argument, how do you know Labour won't better, because you haven't said why? Mrs x I agree that the Tories have been awful. It is as you say too late for them to promise a load of things that they have failed to deliver on for the past fourteen years. They have failed to deliver for their voters, and must pay the price. I’m all in favour of a Labour government, though wouldn’t vote for them myself. The country isn’t going to improve until it has faced economic collapse, and Labour is the party most likely to deliver that collapse." Based on what? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? No, I just want suitable qualified people. How they got that qualification does not bother me, just that they can demonstrate a certain level of intelligence. The difference then is whether they can demonstrate some sort of moral judgements over those they are making decisions for. They actually work for us but too many are self serving, working for themselves and their mates. The PPE scandal is just one such example. Mrs x" But what is a suitable qualified person? Why would someone with a degree in art history be better placed to run the country than an electrician who employs twenty staff? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? No, I just want suitable qualified people. How they got that qualification does not bother me, just that they can demonstrate a certain level of intelligence. The difference then is whether they can demonstrate some sort of moral judgements over those they are making decisions for. They actually work for us but too many are self serving, working for themselves and their mates. The PPE scandal is just one such example. Mrs x But what is a suitable qualified person? Why would someone with a degree in art history be better placed to run the country than an electrician who employs twenty staff?" Never said they would, you going to actually read what I've written? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? No, I just want suitable qualified people. How they got that qualification does not bother me, just that they can demonstrate a certain level of intelligence. The difference then is whether they can demonstrate some sort of moral judgements over those they are making decisions for. They actually work for us but too many are self serving, working for themselves and their mates. The PPE scandal is just one such example. Mrs x But what is a suitable qualified person? Why would someone with a degree in art history be better placed to run the country than an electrician who employs twenty staff?" Or a tool makers son haha, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x" I'm not joining the dots here. Are you saying MP's or ministers that are well off, or rich aren't going to be be good in post because of their wealth or attitude towards those who are not se well off? You say the tories have been looking after themselves and their mates for the last 14 years, I think we will be saying the same thing about labour when it comes towards the end of their future term. They will be in power and making the calls, mark my words.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don’t remotely envy your struggle. Hope things are improving? " Thank you. However thankfully lot's of hard work we are doing good these days , if they'd been food banks available back then we'd definitely have needed to use them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on.I'm not saying they are but I'm saying they cannot be worse. Highest tax burden since WWII, from the party that prides itself on tax cutting. It's a joke. If they were going to improve the economy why haven't they, they've had 14 years, enough is enough. And using your argument, how do you know Labour won't better, because you haven't said why? Mrs x I agree that the Tories have been awful. It is as you say too late for them to promise a load of things that they have failed to deliver on for the past fourteen years. They have failed to deliver for their voters, and must pay the price. I’m all in favour of a Labour government, though wouldn’t vote for them myself. The country isn’t going to improve until it has faced economic collapse, and Labour is the party most likely to deliver that collapse.Based on what? Mrs x" Based on their disconnection from economic reality, and being in the pockets of public sector unions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x" I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I'm not joining the dots here. Are you saying MP's or ministers that are well off, or rich aren't going to be be good in post because of their wealth or attitude towards those who are not se well off? You say the tories have been looking after themselves and their mates for the last 14 years, I think we will be saying the same thing about labour when it comes towards the end of their future term. They will be in power and making the calls, mark my words. "Well I'm not sure but I think once you are in power the object is for you to make the calls, so I will mark your words but I think that's already a foregone conclusion. As for the economy, Sunaks percentage of people who think he will raise taxes is going up not down. The party of low taxation has been raising taxes throughout the 14 years they've been in power, calling the shots. This is in addition to austerity, which has seen local services decimated by this bunch. A huge money grab on two fronts. Labour were voted out primarily in opposition to the Iraq War and the part they played there. They actually oversaw decent improvements within the economy, they actually presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. So no I don't think it will be as bad under Labour, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I'm not joining the dots here. Are you saying MP's or ministers that are well off, or rich aren't going to be be good in post because of their wealth or attitude towards those who are not se well off? You say the tories have been looking after themselves and their mates for the last 14 years, I think we will be saying the same thing about labour when it comes towards the end of their future term. They will be in power and making the calls, mark my words. Well I'm not sure but I think once you are in power the object is for you to make the calls, so I will mark your words but I think that's already a foregone conclusion.
As for the economy, Sunaks percentage of people who think he will raise taxes is going up not down. The party of low taxation has been raising taxes throughout the 14 years they've been in power, calling the shots.
This is in addition to austerity, which has seen local services decimated by this bunch. A huge money grab on two fronts.
Labour were voted out primarily in opposition to the Iraq War and the part they played there.
They actually oversaw decent improvements within the economy, they actually presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. So no I don't think it will be as bad under Labour, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Mrs x"I’m not sure it’s possible to simultaneously complain about tax rises and “austerity”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on.I'm not saying they are but I'm saying they cannot be worse. Highest tax burden since WWII, from the party that prides itself on tax cutting. It's a joke. If they were going to improve the economy why haven't they, they've had 14 years, enough is enough. And using your argument, how do you know Labour won't better, because you haven't said why? Mrs x I agree that the Tories have been awful. It is as you say too late for them to promise a load of things that they have failed to deliver on for the past fourteen years. They have failed to deliver for their voters, and must pay the price. I’m all in favour of a Labour government, though wouldn’t vote for them myself. The country isn’t going to improve until it has faced economic collapse, and Labour is the party most likely to deliver that collapse.Based on what? Mrs x Based on their disconnection from economic reality, and being in the pockets of public sector unions." Being close to workers unions means there not connected to economic reality? Surely that would mean they're a lot closer to the economic reality of ordinary people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia." Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I'm not joining the dots here. Are you saying MP's or ministers that are well off, or rich aren't going to be be good in post because of their wealth or attitude towards those who are not se well off? You say the tories have been looking after themselves and their mates for the last 14 years, I think we will be saying the same thing about labour when it comes towards the end of their future term. They will be in power and making the calls, mark my words. Well I'm not sure but I think once you are in power the object is for you to make the calls, so I will mark your words but I think that's already a foregone conclusion.
As for the economy, Sunaks percentage of people who think he will raise taxes is going up not down. The party of low taxation has been raising taxes throughout the 14 years they've been in power, calling the shots.
This is in addition to austerity, which has seen local services decimated by this bunch. A huge money grab on two fronts.
Labour were voted out primarily in opposition to the Iraq War and the part they played there.
They actually oversaw decent improvements within the economy, they actually presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. So no I don't think it will be as bad under Labour, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Mrs x
I’m not sure it’s possible to simultaneously complain about tax rises and “austerity”."Because during the same period other countries did not follow the same route as the UK and out performed us. Austerity was not needed. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. What's being educated got to do with anything? Surely you'd want those making decisions to have qualifications. Mrs x Why? If you broke a bone would you go to the hospital or just see one of your mates who dud a bit of first aid a few years back but didn't actually complete the course? Mrs x Do you feel that non graduates should be barred from standing for Parliament? Yet you don’t want people in government who don’t have any experience of being in government. I didn’t say that at all, I queried why you were assuming that Labour would be better at government than the Tories, given that you have nothing to base the assumption on.I'm not saying they are but I'm saying they cannot be worse. Highest tax burden since WWII, from the party that prides itself on tax cutting. It's a joke. If they were going to improve the economy why haven't they, they've had 14 years, enough is enough. And using your argument, how do you know Labour won't better, because you haven't said why? Mrs x I agree that the Tories have been awful. It is as you say too late for them to promise a load of things that they have failed to deliver on for the past fourteen years. They have failed to deliver for their voters, and must pay the price. I’m all in favour of a Labour government, though wouldn’t vote for them myself. The country isn’t going to improve until it has faced economic collapse, and Labour is the party most likely to deliver that collapse.Based on what? Mrs x Based on their disconnection from economic reality, and being in the pockets of public sector unions. Being close to workers unions means there not connected to economic reality? Surely that would mean they're a lot closer to the economic reality of ordinary people." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x" I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?" So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x" I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long." But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x" It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral." It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x" You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that." I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x" Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly." OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral." Reaganomics disproved the Laffer theory | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly." I don’t think it is just the rich. Anyone with any assets, property, pension funds etc is going to be hit. They’ve run out of income to tax so they are going to have to start extracting capital from people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x" I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?" Boomers fucked the World so need to cough up  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?" I think there's a fundamental difference in stopping tax breaks and direct taxation. I think cutting tax breaks is fairer and I'm sure that's going to happen. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?I think there's a fundamental difference in stopping tax breaks and direct taxation. I think cutting tax breaks is fairer and I'm sure that's going to happen. Mrs x" What are you calling out as tax breaks? This is when you sort the wheat from the chaff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?I think there's a fundamental difference in stopping tax breaks and direct taxation. I think cutting tax breaks is fairer and I'm sure that's going to happen. Mrs x What are you calling out as tax breaks? This is when you sort the wheat from the chaff. " Things that don't affect the majority, things like the VAT on private schools. Also on non earned income. Sunak himself was paid over 20 million last year in non earned income and because of tax breaks only paid 20% tax on this. So closing breaks like this would be one of my choice. Things like that. What would be your thoughts on what tax breaks should be closed? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"don’t think it is just the rich. Anyone with any assets, property, pension funds etc is going to be hit. They’ve run out of income to tax so they are going to have to start extracting capital from people." Starmer's gonna compulsory purchase your house for £1 and use it to house a family of Afghan immigrants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"don’t think it is just the rich. Anyone with any assets, property, pension funds etc is going to be hit. They’ve run out of income to tax so they are going to have to start extracting capital from people. Starmer's gonna compulsory purchase your house for £1 and use it to house a family of Afghan immigrants " Sensible Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak " We only had black and white tv as my parents couldn't afford the colour tv licence. My mum made our clothes from hers. We used to have to pay to use the phone and put coppers in the phone money box. I got joint birthday and Christmas presents. I got my sister's hand me downs. Apart from visiting Nan in London, the only holiday we had was one my grandparents paid for - Great Yarmouth. Didn't have sky tv ffs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The overwhelming majority of MP’s are now graduates, which is obviously totally out of kilter with the population as a whole. The percentage of Labour MP’s who are graduates is higher than the percentage of Conservatives. For Liberal Democrats the percentage is higher still. This isn’t unique to the UK, but the problem is far bigger than Sunak’s wealth. " You do know poor people can get degrees? I have one  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak We only had black and white tv as my parents couldn't afford the colour tv licence. My mum made our clothes from hers. We used to have to pay to use the phone and put coppers in the phone money box. I got joint birthday and Christmas presents. I got my sister's hand me downs. Apart from visiting Nan in London, the only holiday we had was one my grandparents paid for - Great Yarmouth. Didn't have sky tv ffs." Starmer said he didn’t have Sky either as a kid, despite the fact that it didn’t start until he was 27. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak We only had black and white tv as my parents couldn't afford the colour tv licence. My mum made our clothes from hers. We used to have to pay to use the phone and put coppers in the phone money box. I got joint birthday and Christmas presents. I got my sister's hand me downs. Apart from visiting Nan in London, the only holiday we had was one my grandparents paid for - Great Yarmouth. Didn't have sky tv ffs. Starmer said he didn’t have Sky either as a kid, despite the fact that it didn’t start until he was 27. " Tories still demanding an investigation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak We only had black and white tv as my parents couldn't afford the colour tv licence. My mum made our clothes from hers. We used to have to pay to use the phone and put coppers in the phone money box. I got joint birthday and Christmas presents. I got my sister's hand me downs. Apart from visiting Nan in London, the only holiday we had was one my grandparents paid for - Great Yarmouth. Didn't have sky tv ffs. Starmer said he didn’t have Sky either as a kid, despite the fact that it didn’t start until he was 27. Tories still demanding an investigation. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?I think there's a fundamental difference in stopping tax breaks and direct taxation. I think cutting tax breaks is fairer and I'm sure that's going to happen. Mrs x What are you calling out as tax breaks? This is when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Things that don't affect the majority, things like the VAT on private schools. Also on non earned income. Sunak himself was paid over 20 million last year in non earned income and because of tax breaks only paid 20% tax on this. So closing breaks like this would be one of my choice. Things like that. What would be your thoughts on what tax breaks should be closed? Mrs x" I think it is terminology and too complex an environment that makes things harder to understand than they need to be with tax laws. Everything Sunak's accountant would have done to reduce his tax bill is available to everyone outside of PAYE, so I would imagine a tax law review and simplification would be a preferred outcome. There must be some allowances, or prices / service charges etc would rise, but tax should be a transparent process. I haven't answered directly because there are so many things to list and not all breaks are unjustified. I use an accountant to claim my expenses, write off's, and a few other things that do bring my tax burden down. That isn't me dodging tax, that is me in business and using the tools of business to operate on level ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak " duno how he got through his childhood ffs the prick | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”." Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch "another loonie left comment lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch "I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them. No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol"That’s me! Total loon! Totally left!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch
I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them.
No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far."Or you could actually just learn about facts and history and why words and how you use them matter. BUT…let’s no derail this thread with poor Reform candidate nonsense as it’ll piss people off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol"Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..? Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was.. If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?I think there's a fundamental difference in stopping tax breaks and direct taxation. I think cutting tax breaks is fairer and I'm sure that's going to happen. Mrs x What are you calling out as tax breaks? This is when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Things that don't affect the majority, things like the VAT on private schools. Also on non earned income. Sunak himself was paid over 20 million last year in non earned income and because of tax breaks only paid 20% tax on this. So closing breaks like this would be one of my choice. Things like that. What would be your thoughts on what tax breaks should be closed? Mrs x I think it is terminology and too complex an environment that makes things harder to understand than they need to be with tax laws. Everything Sunak's accountant would have done to reduce his tax bill is available to everyone outside of PAYE, so I would imagine a tax law review and simplification would be a preferred outcome. There must be some allowances, or prices / service charges etc would rise, but tax should be a transparent process. I haven't answered directly because there are so many things to list and not all breaks are unjustified. I use an accountant to claim my expenses, write off's, and a few other things that do bring my tax burden down. That isn't me dodging tax, that is me in business and using the tools of business to operate on level ground. " I'm not saying you are digging tax but even the terminology you use suggest if you can then you should pay as little tax as possible, you use the phrase 'write off'. I'm aware that there is nothing illegal in thus but at some point, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Jimmy Carrs tax affairs spring to mind. Also Sunak earned over 20 million quid last year from investments etc, unearned income and yet he only paid 20% in tax on this. So I'm not having a go at small businesses who need to be able to limit their tax burden in order to survive. I'm saying it's immoral for wealthy individuals to claim 'breaks' just because they can. Everyone should pay their fair share. If you've done OK living here then you should pay into the same system that enriched you. Any tax breaks that are not available to everyone should be looked at and if necessary they should be closed. They revenue from this should be pit back into society for the benefit of everyone. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché.."No I haven’t seen that. Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with? Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?"Corbyn is now far right? Silliness is large today with you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you "What was that about childish and tired clichés? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés? "I prefer appropriate to someone who continues to be silly.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés? "Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody.. Or childish and tired clichés.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
I prefer appropriate to someone who continues to be silly.."Let us know who these people are that Farage has been sharing a stage with and what their “Nazi bile” consists of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are a funny contrast to the USA where vulgar displays of wealth are actually welcomed by many of the electorate and you end up as President (even if your wealth is built on debt and wooden dollars). Over here we prefer our politicians to keep their wealth on the down low. Sunak may as well just be more up front instead of trying to be a man of the people! It's a mindset thing : the cherished American dream. In the US wealth is encouraged, respected and admired. Here it's on a par with leprosy. It's encouraged here, the Tories have been promoting it for themselves and their mates for the last 14 years. There's a difference between being a self made man and having it handed to you because you belong to the 'club", old school tie etc. Johnson did lots of damage within buffoonery and people have seen through that. The silver spoon set are never going to have ordinary people's backs. We exist to serve and should be grateful for any morsel that falls from their table. Looks like the population are finally seeing through the lies being told to them by this uber rich bunch of twats. Mrs x I can see kids of the wealthy get an advantage - look at all the 'nepo babies' we have in music, film, TV. But Sunak was the son of immigrants, albeit middle class. He got to Oxford and Stanford, no mean achievement. Then to the City working for Goldman Sachs where he made his fortune. Bashing his wealth just comes across as sour grapes to me. Anyway, if Labour squeeze the rich, they'll all piss off and leave the rest of us to our socialist utopia.Not bashing Sunaks achievements but they are from the baseline of middle classdom. Not a working class lad. As for sour grapes, wouldn't that normally be associated with someone who may be losing? I don't think that's the case here. I'm saying his lifestyle doesn't afford him any insight into the lifestyle of the working man. You remember the Tunbridge Wells garden party, where he was laughing when telling those there, how he took the funds from levelling up poor urban areas and gave them to the richer areas. He actually went on to say how he had to fix this as the richer areas needed these funds. And as for your Labour claims what are you basing this on? It's not the fact the under the last Labour government they presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history is it. Or are you basing it on something else? Can't be on the old tax rising claims can it? Not after the Tories have taxed us more than any other party, more than anyone since WW2. And if you believe the £2000 lying Tory mantra, you do know the right wing publication, The Spectator, just using Tory figures, no Special Advisor figures, have worked out the Tories are in line to raise taxes by £3000. And if all the Tories figures are to be believed this could be as high as £13,000 over the next Parliament. So what are you basing your statements on? Mrs x I'm basing it on a harsh economic reality. There is a well established link between punitive high taxes and a brain drain. We saw it in the 70s when high rate hit 83%. That was then in 2024, high achievers have even more mobility, they'll head off to Dubai, Singapore, New York. If we lose the City (our only world class sector) we are truly sunk. Then what happens? The same as when we had 83% tax. Enter stage left Maggie Thatcher. is that what we want (again) ?So did that happen under Labour last time? No it didn't, maybe they have learnt there lesson. You seem to be basing your statements from events that occurred over 50 years ago, whilst conveniently ignoring stuff, that doesn't suit your argument, from say 20 years ago. The last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in British history. Compare this to the latest Tory government that has raised taxes higher than any other government since WW2. But you still want to cling to examples from 50 years ago. I'm not quoting personal opinions here just facts. And Labour have said they will not raise income tax during this parliament. So why do you still believe the Tories, highest tax burden EVER, over the Labour Party, saying no income tax rises and who in their last government had the longest period of economic growth in history. I cannot understand it really. Mrs x I'm not defending the Tories, they fully deserve the boot. Just making the point that taxes are too high already. Then if Labour increase them further, we approach a tipping point where several things happen 1)wealthy take flight and 2) entrepreneurship is discouraged. But maybe Labour have a 'magic money tree' - we'll know before too long.But what are you basing that on? I know what happened in the 70's but why do you think that's going to happen again, given that it didn't happen in 1997 or the following years under Labour. In fact it was spectacularly positive, economy wise. Mrs x It's basic economic theory. There's an inverted U curve called a Laffer curve. At the apex is the optimum rate of tax that can be collected. This is the tipping point. At higher levels of tax, economic activity declines, and tax revenues shrink. It is effectively a death spiral. It's a fallacy that Labour introduced this policy of hyper taxation of the wealthy. During the War it was much higher. 'The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s. In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%. In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%'. So as you can see, all governments had the highest level of taxation around this figure. It's only since Thatcher and her spin on it that the Tories are the party of tax cutters. In fact in her first budget she cut the higher rate by 23p down to 60% but only reduced the lower tax bracket to 30% from 33%. Looking after her wealthy mates again. So this level of extremely high taxation went on for 35 years, by all governments but only Labour got tarred with the high taxation party. So given this, your argument could be levelled at the Tory party too. Mrs x You seem to think I'm taking a partisan position. I'm not. Just saying higher taxes = declining economy. Remember the maxim "it's all about the economy stupid". It's as simple as that.I'm not suggesting anything, you mentioned about Labour and the dangers of them raising taxes. I'm just pointing out facts as to why I don't believe they will. These are not my opinions, they are just easily found facts. Mrs x Honestly, I don't think they'll have any choice. They'll either renege on their promises or find stealth taxes. But my point is that if they go after the rich it will backfire badly.OK so let's go with your opinion. What do you think they'll actually do then? Mrs x I'd guess stealth taxes on boomers and borrowing. What do you reckon?I think there's a fundamental difference in stopping tax breaks and direct taxation. I think cutting tax breaks is fairer and I'm sure that's going to happen. Mrs x What are you calling out as tax breaks? This is when you sort the wheat from the chaff. Things that don't affect the majority, things like the VAT on private schools. Also on non earned income. Sunak himself was paid over 20 million last year in non earned income and because of tax breaks only paid 20% tax on this. So closing breaks like this would be one of my choice. Things like that. What would be your thoughts on what tax breaks should be closed? Mrs x I think it is terminology and too complex an environment that makes things harder to understand than they need to be with tax laws. Everything Sunak's accountant would have done to reduce his tax bill is available to everyone outside of PAYE, so I would imagine a tax law review and simplification would be a preferred outcome. There must be some allowances, or prices / service charges etc would rise, but tax should be a transparent process. I haven't answered directly because there are so many things to list and not all breaks are unjustified. I use an accountant to claim my expenses, write off's, and a few other things that do bring my tax burden down. That isn't me dodging tax, that is me in business and using the tools of business to operate on level ground. I'm not saying you are digging tax but even the terminology you use suggest if you can then you should pay as little tax as possible, you use the phrase 'write off'. I'm aware that there is nothing illegal in thus but at some point, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Jimmy Carrs tax affairs spring to mind. Also Sunak earned over 20 million quid last year from investments etc, unearned income and yet he only paid 20% in tax on this. So I'm not having a go at small businesses who need to be able to limit their tax burden in order to survive. I'm saying it's immoral for wealthy individuals to claim 'breaks' just because they can. Everyone should pay their fair share. If you've done OK living here then you should pay into the same system that enriched you. Any tax breaks that are not available to everyone should be looked at and if necessary they should be closed. They revenue from this should be pit back into society for the benefit of everyone. Mrs x" It isn’t a one tax fits all I’m afraid. PAYE is very straight forward, and it works for the majority of the country. There should be as I mentioned prior be a more transparent set of tax rules and laws for business / others outside of PAYE to follow. We could as an example scrap any form of tax relief and introduce a flat rate tax for businesses generations over £xxxxx per year. The flat rate could be 30%, but I think that would create more pushback from people paying lower tax, but it would more than likely bring more revenue into the coffers. It is too complicated, but we need incentives to drive investment and entrepreneurs, increasing the tax burden will inevitably result in job losses and a move of investment elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés.."Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch
I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them.
No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far."Can you tell me the historical inaccuracy of the holocaust that I may have learned at school please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break. "I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..? Tea? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?"I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch
I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them.
No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far.
Can you tell me the historical inaccuracy of the holocaust that I may have learned at school please."Hysterical. We’ve moved swiftly from “if people want to discuss whether Britain may have had different options to the one that it took in the 1930’s and 1940’s, let them do so” to “Holocaust Denier”! The tolerant left strikes again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch
I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them.
No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far.
Can you tell me the historical inaccuracy of the holocaust that I may have learned at school please.
Hysterical. We’ve moved swiftly from “if people want to discuss whether Britain may have had different options to the one that it took in the 1930’s and 1940’s, let them do so” to “Holocaust Denier”!
The tolerant left strikes again."You could have just said no. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch
I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them.
No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far.
Can you tell me the historical inaccuracy of the holocaust that I may have learned at school please.
Hysterical. We’ve moved swiftly from “if people want to discuss whether Britain may have had different options to the one that it took in the 1930’s and 1940’s, let them do so” to “Holocaust Denier”!
The tolerant left strikes again.
You could have just said no."Unless you are a Holocaust denier? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch
I should probably record some before the Labour government bans them.
No doubt there will need to be a new “Office for Historical Accuracy” to ensure that our thinking on these matters doesn’t stray too far.
Can you tell me the historical inaccuracy of the holocaust that I may have learned at school please.
Hysterical. We’ve moved swiftly from “if people want to discuss whether Britain may have had different options to the one that it took in the 1930’s and 1940’s, let them do so” to “Holocaust Denier”!
The tolerant left strikes again."DERAIL DERAIL DERAIL!!!!!! Buuuuuut… Of course Britain had different options in 1939 but the point is that A) The nature of the Nazis was already known B) Nazi Germany was the aggressor C) Sensible politicians didn’t want to be Hitler’s bitch and D) Within a few more years going to war with Nazi Germany was fully vindicated by the discovery of the full extent of the Nazi atrocities. Words matter. How you use words matter. Context matters. Anything to do with Hitler and the Nazis comes with decades of highly emotive knowledge. You know this right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?"So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd? Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered.."Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do. I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real. "Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents."Don't you believe the horseshoe theory? BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real. "Who will jump the void? You know, the large gap between the two ends.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents."I think Galloway and Farage shared a stage on the run up to the EU Referendum? The Labour Party used to have a strong vein of euro scepticism before it was taken over by globalist puppets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument. "It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down."They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
I think Galloway and Farage shared a stage on the run up to the EU Referendum?
The Labour Party used to have a strong vein of euro scepticism before it was taken over by globalist puppets."Hmmm Galloway and Farage, now what do they have in common I wonder? Oh yes populist charlatans on the make | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle "I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle
I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits."No one is saying the are the same thing. One posters claims 'have you seen who Farage shares a stage with'and then claim a sarcastic reply of 'Corbyn?' And then came the rest of the shit. I'd suggest if anyone didn't spot the sarcasm in there, they probably should avoid the Internet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle
I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits.
No one is saying the are the same thing.
One posters claims 'have you seen who Farage shares a stage with'and then claim a sarcastic reply of 'Corbyn?' And then came the rest of the shit.
I'd suggest if anyone didn't spot the sarcasm in there, they probably should avoid the Internet. "I didn’t say you or anyone was! You asked my thoughts on horseshoe theory. I gave it. That’s it. All there is. Nothing more to see | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle
I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits.
No one is saying the are the same thing.
One posters claims 'have you seen who Farage shares a stage with'and then claim a sarcastic reply of 'Corbyn?' And then came the rest of the shit.
I'd suggest if anyone didn't spot the sarcasm in there, they probably should avoid the Internet.
I didn’t say you or anyone was! You asked my thoughts on horseshoe theory. I gave it. That’s it. All there is. Nothing more to see "So the horseshoe theory is real and we can use it. But we should laugh if anyone brings it up. Got it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle
I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits.
No one is saying the are the same thing.
One posters claims 'have you seen who Farage shares a stage with'and then claim a sarcastic reply of 'Corbyn?' And then came the rest of the shit.
I'd suggest if anyone didn't spot the sarcasm in there, they probably should avoid the Internet.
I didn’t say you or anyone was! You asked my thoughts on horseshoe theory. I gave it. That’s it. All there is. Nothing more to see
So the horseshoe theory is real and we can use it. But we should laugh if anyone brings it up. Got it "As you haven’t been posting much I forgot how sensitive you can be. Sorry for the LOLZ
You raised horseshoe theory to seemingly argue that Corbyn and Farage could share a stage, implying that you think their political ideology is not THAT dissimilar but IMO that shoes how the theory is misunderstood and misused. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle
I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits.
No one is saying the are the same thing.
One posters claims 'have you seen who Farage shares a stage with'and then claim a sarcastic reply of 'Corbyn?' And then came the rest of the shit.
I'd suggest if anyone didn't spot the sarcasm in there, they probably should avoid the Internet.
I didn’t say you or anyone was! You asked my thoughts on horseshoe theory. I gave it. That’s it. All there is. Nothing more to see
So the horseshoe theory is real and we can use it. But we should laugh if anyone brings it up. Got it
As you haven’t been posting much I forgot how sensitive you can be. Sorry for the LOLZ
You raised horseshoe theory to seemingly argue that Corbyn and Farage could share a stage, implying that you think their political ideology is not THAT dissimilar but IMO that shoes how the theory is misunderstood and misused. "I did raise it for that reason, purely because the other poster offers us no answers. As I said already, the initial Corbyn comment was clear sarcasm, something I'm positive you recognised | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to Andrew Neil, who was involved with Sky from its formation, working class families were the first group of people to subscribe. Politicians equating Sky TV to some kind of privileged existence would appear to be incorrect. In my recollection, there was quite a lot of snobbery around Sky’s inception, as there was around ITV before it. The usual left wing elitists considered Sky to be the end of civilisation as we knew it at the time, and insisted on sticking to watching only the BBC, if indeed they deigned to have a television at all. Of course the same people who are now desperate for us to believe that they were too poor to have Sky, would at the time have been sneering at the riff raff who were keen to watch the “Murdoch trash”. Some good documentaries about the Nazis and the Holocaust that Reform candidates and supporters could watch another loonie left comment lol
Have you seen just whom Farage has shared stages with..?
Some of their ideas are literally the same as what the nazi party bile was..
If it's loony left to not want such people anywhere near power then hey sign me up to that tired and childish cliché..
No I haven’t seen that.
Can you tell us who he has been sharing stages with?
Jeremy Corbyn? Half of the Labour Party?
Corbyn is now far right?
Silliness is large today with you
What was that about childish and tired clichés?
Let's be honest anyone who thinks Farage and Corbyn might share a commonality whereby the would share a stage is beyond parody..
Or childish and tired clichés..
Struggling a little today? Maybe time for a break.
I wasn't refering to you, unless you also think the absurd idea that Farage and Corbyn that buck raised has any credibility..?
Tea?
I was referring to you. Complain about 'tired clichés' and then throw some out yourself. Who said the left weren't hypocrites?
So you don't disagree that Farage and Corbyn sharing a stage is absurd?
Which was sort of the point being discussed till you entered..
Well if Corbyn is Far Left and Farage is Far Right, then by using the horseshoe theory, they may well do.
I do note you think it's absurd but refuse to actually give any answer you think is more real.
Lolz horseshoe theory to win an argument. Hell would freeze over before Corbyn and Farage shared a stage UNLESS it was to debate each other as opponents.
Don't you believe the horseshoe theory?
BTW, I'm not trying to 'win' an argument.
It is a good theory and a lot of scholars like it but not everyone subscribes to it. While both extremes share many similarities, there still remains differences so the idea they can ever fully overlap arguably falls down.
They can't fully overlap, hence the horseshoe and not a circle
I know (like yeah I really know) but that is one of the reason some scholars don’t like it because people incorrectly use it to say Communism and Fascism are basically the same when they aren’t, they just share many traits.
No one is saying the are the same thing.
One posters claims 'have you seen who Farage shares a stage with'and then claim a sarcastic reply of 'Corbyn?' And then came the rest of the shit.
I'd suggest if anyone didn't spot the sarcasm in there, they probably should avoid the Internet.
I didn’t say you or anyone was! You asked my thoughts on horseshoe theory. I gave it. That’s it. All there is. Nothing more to see
So the horseshoe theory is real and we can use it. But we should laugh if anyone brings it up. Got it
As you haven’t been posting much I forgot how sensitive you can be. Sorry for the LOLZ
You raised horseshoe theory to seemingly argue that Corbyn and Farage could share a stage, implying that you think their political ideology is not THAT dissimilar but IMO that shoes how the theory is misunderstood and misused.
I did raise it for that reason, purely because the other poster offers us no answers. As I said already, the initial Corbyn comment was clear sarcasm, something I'm positive you recognised "Like Gimli falling off the horse “it was deliberate, deliberate!”
We are going to get ticked off in a minute for straying off topic  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak " To be fair to rishi… it’s actually the Mrs who comes from the super rich family.. not him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ahhh bless him in an interview clearly aimed at sympathy he's claiming he went without as a child,one being sky Tv !! Well fuck me if that's his standard for being poor I think he's clearly living on another planet. Try taking turns with your partner skipping meals so your kid can eat or getting your clothes from car boot sales or charity, paying for your petrol with coppers £2.82 so you can get to work the next day, limiting baths or shower to once a week, constantly being in your emergency credit on the electric meter, not having a telephone and Mrs having to borrow the neighbours to ring me at work to tell me my dad had died. So cry me a river Mr (multi millionaire) sunak To be fair to rishi… it’s actually the Mrs who comes from the super rich family.. not him " Let’s not be too fair to Sunk, oops Sunak! His parents may have been a pharmacist and a GP but they must have had either serious income or considerable debt to fund his place at Winchester College. Have you seen the fees (at the time too)? He has siblings too right? Did they also go? They were not your average family. And I am not criticising that at all. But let’s be honest about it. He then made his money as a gambler, oops Hedge Fund Manager that in part helped cause the financial crisis in 2007/8. So let’s not be too easy on him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
