OK, I'll kick off tonights Political thread.....

[Octopus]

Let's, once again, debunk the myth of an open door immigration policy.
My brother is married to a Nigerian woman, under Labour she suddenly became ineligible for an entry visa despite having been here for visits several times and never outstaying her welcome or putting any strain on any services. She came for a couple of months, went back to Lagos at the appropriate time, reapplied for a visa and was told "no"
She applied for what I can only describe as dual nationality because of being married to a Brit and this was again refused. Since then, under this administration she has reapplied for a visa recently and it looks like she is going to get unrestricted access for one year after which the situation will be reviewed.
How does that fit with an unrestricted immigration policy which allows Uncle Tom Cobley and all to come here?
Yes there is free movement of people within the EU but you have exactly the same rights of movement as Yarrick and Darrick, there are several million Brits living on mainland Europe which proves that

All I can add matey is that down South, going to my local Morrissons is like going to a foreigh country. We have servere housing shortages and the prices of houses and rents have gone through the roof.

Mass immigration IS a problem down here - maybe not for you, but certainly here.

And as for the Brits living abroad, most are self funding through retirement etc.

 

[dingledong]

Trevor why don't your brother go and live there
And it seems most pensioners living abroad whizz back here the moment they have anything a bit serious happen to them

 

[trev]

He splits his time between here and there when he's not working mate. He prefers it here because his kids from his first marriage are here.

 

[ferg]

All I can add matey is that down South, going to my local Morrissons is like going to a foreigh country. We have servere housing shortages and the prices of houses and rents have gone through the roof.

Mass immigration IS a problem down here - maybe not for you, but certainly here.

And as for the Brits living abroad, most are self funding through retirement etc.

Our pensioners are putting quite a strain on the health service in parts of Spain.

High house prices in the south?? good golly and gosh whatever next.

Britain and particularly the south has always been a melting pot and there have always been those that don't like it.

2nd generation immigrants don't like new immigrants.

People in general just don't like change.

Even places like Australia and the U.S. have people sulking about immigrants.

Where do you draw the line?

Them bloody Geordies coming down here and working for less, nickin our jobs and wimmin.

A bit farther afield maybe.. Scotland, Ireland, Wales ??

Obviously Brits have a great reputation abroad.....

We are considered in many countries to be arrogant,work shy, dishonest, loud, obnoxious and drunk.

The English language is made up of several other European languages with bits and pieces added to it from our colonial days.

Britain has since the first days of sea travel been a country of immigrants and emigres.

Right now more people are coming in than leaving that tells me I live in a good place.

A quick look in the history books will tell you this hasn't always been the case.

 

[trev]

People in the south used to brag about the value of their houses when comparing them to similar ones in the north. Funny how the worm turns when it has to.

 

[dingledong]

Trev it's easy up north but down here it's hard . Do you know the amount of staff I need on my small 10 bedroom house and the groundkeepers I have to pay as well.also do you know how much a butler wants nowadays ! ! I am struggling mate

 

[Diddy]

I will read the replies to my post's properly later...I have been out most of the day so have just skim read the replies. BUT 2 things stood out about the replies.
1. PFI started under the tories......so now I point that out like any good politician you spin it round and say well them labour lot used it much more and over used it...just lol - ANY government would have used that model because they get away scot free with the responsibility of paying for it or even answering to the electorate. Also I don't know how how many times I need to say it New Labour were not and are not a socialist government.
2. Why every time the word socialism is used do people just say well look at Russia. Just because they made a bugger of it does not mean the model is defunct. Just because Hitler ended up becoming a mass murdering psychopath does not mean that some of his policies (Of which he was fairly and squarely elected on were not very good policies), Karl Marx was not the fool/idiot that many "think" he was...the trouble with history is it is written by the winners of any given conflict.
If socialism is ALWAYS bad then why is the scandinavian countries doing so well ? And the flip side if capitalism is always good why did we have to use a socialist ideal to rescue the whole bloody world from collapse (There would have been rioting on the streets of the whole of the G8 btw if that idiot Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling had not led the world with the refinancing of the banks - The UK was 48 hours away from military presence on the streets to keep order. If you don't believe that then check out the memoirs of the countries top civil servants and permanent secretaries (The people who really run the country btw as they are never replaced no matter the government) of that week in 2008 when it all happened. The scenario was that one of our majors was basically not going to open it's doors in 24 hours (The monday) if they were not refinanced, This would have had a domino effect on ALL the others - nobody would have had ANY cash. No food - no fuel no power......The only 2 people with the plan to save the system were Brown and Darling, Hank Pulson (The yanks top man at the time) was whimpering like an 8yo school child as he was so out of his mind with worry about what was going to happen....It has even been reported that one CEO at one of the top UK banks went straight out and bought a whole farm as this was all unfolding (So he could feed his family as cahs would have been useless and non existent).
So what they done was refinance the banks - Socialism for the rich.....Well that is the way I see it.
So we have had recessions all through history - does that then follow that capitalism is the way forward ? I would venture that it is far from it.
Would I accept a 40% tax ? In a heartbeat mate - IF it meant that I/we were getting access to the best that there was/is in social justice and care.
Russia took it too far - Power corrupts, Man is his own worst enemy.
Lastly one poster said his mother said Thatchers era was much better than the 70's labour government. Better for who ? Apart from the fact that we are talking about ONE government which lasted 4 years and is not indicative of all the other socialist governments that we enjoyed that gave us lots of "good" things that we moan about and take for granted. Thatcherism was good for the people who went on to steal their childrens and grandchildrens future due to the completely selfish nature of the times. YOU are paying for the "success" of the Thatcher era now. Your kids will pay for it when they start to earn too. Also if you lived north of Watford you never even got a real slice of the pie....the further north the worse it was.
Anyway like I said I just skim read the replies.....I may well post more later.

 

[trev]

I think a lot of people forget that they actually have a hell of a lot to thank socialism for, the education they got as children and that their children get today, legislation which governs what an employer can and cannot do, the standard 40 hour week, entitlement to paid time off, sickness pay, the NHS and much much more.

 

[dingledong]

Also the trouble we are in now

 

[trev]

Would that be the trouble caused by the collapse of the global banking industry?

 

[Octopus]

Would that be the trouble caused by the collapse of the global banking industry?

and the excessive borrowing by UK plc and us individuals!

 

[trev]

Here we go again.
The banking collapse was caused by the deregulation of the industry in the 1980s this eventually led to the betting shop that became. Another direct result of this was irresponsible lending to people who had no chance of repaying their loans which were often secured on properties that turned out to be worth nowhere near the values put on them by the banks which advanced the loans.
Yet another result was the willingness to loan money to anyone who could sign their name on a piece of paper.
Had the collapse happened under this administration they would have done EXACTLY THE SAME as the government did in 2008, they have admitted that. They would have had no other choice but to do so, it was a necessary evil to avert the catastrophe that would have followed.
Now, the next thing that's usually said is "Ah but Labour were in power for 13 years and did nothing to reverse the deregulation" well that's a pretty shallow argument because this lot have been in power for 4 years now and have done nothing either, nor are they likely to.
I'll acknowledge that tory-lite are unlikely to re regulate the industry, that does not mean that it does not need to be done.

 

[Octopus]

Here we go again.
I'll acknowledge that tory-lite are unlikely to re regulate the industry, that does not mean that it does not need to be done.

The previous Administration were warned in 2005 by the Treasury that tax receipts were falling and public spending would need to drop - but they ignored these warnings and carried on regardless.

They were pooring fuel on the fire and anyone with any sense could see that the bust was coming!

 

[trev]

So how come the current lot have borrowed more in 4 years than the last lot did in 13 if they're doing such a fantastic job?
Don't try to come out with that hackneyed line about they had to do it to clear up the mess because we all know that's garbage.
All governments have constant talks with their opposition to keep them in the picture of what is going on, the stuff you see from parliament where their slagging each other off is nothing but theatre because away from that they're all in each other's pockets and the best of mates. This mob knew exactly what they were getting long before they took over.
The now legendary note left in the treasury "Sorry we spent it all and there's nothing left" has been a standing joke in Westminster for years, it's been left for the incoming chancellor every time the government has changed hands since the 60s. This lot decided it was time to make political capital out of it.

 

[dingledong]

I didn't know it was garbage
Labour left us in a terrible state you cannot say they didn't ,worse than any government in history.of course the conservatives have had to borrow to sort it out, and once most off the problems are sorted Labour will get in again and ruin it as always

 

[trev]

Oh FFS man
The country was left in a terrible state because the banks went belly up and we had to bail them out to the tune of several hundred billion quid. The tories would have had to do exactly the same or risk a revolution
Can't you see that?

 

[Octopus]

So how come the current lot have borrowed more in 4 years than the last lot did in 13 if they're doing such a fantastic job?
Don't try to come out with that hackneyed line about they had to do it to clear up the mess because we all know that's garbage.
All governments have constant talks with their opposition to keep them in the picture of what is going on, the stuff you see from parliament where their slagging each other off is nothing but theatre because away from that they're all in each other's pockets and the best of mates. This mob knew exactly what they were getting long before they took over.
The now legendary note left in the treasury "Sorry we spent it all and there's nothing left" has been a standing joke in Westminster for years, it's been left for the incoming chancellor every time the government has changed hands since the 60s. This lot decided it was time to make political capital out of it.

The brutal reality is that who ever won in 2010 would have had to borrow this money, if not more.

The current account deficit is still running at about £70 billion for this year alone.

As for you and me, to balance the books, you need to either spend less or "earn more" - which to you and I is less spending or more taxes.... so look over to France who have decided they can carry on spending and increase taxes to see the effect of that!

None of them have the answers, I repeat none of them.

Unless the international agreements on Corporation tax can be revised and agreed, multi national companies will continue to "move" profits to the lowest rate possible, leaving each and every country to raise what it needs from the tax payer - so yes that means all of us paying more.

the top 1% of earners pay about 30% of all income tax
the next 15% (i.e.) those paying 40% tax pay about 36% of all income tax

so that's the top 16% of earners paying about 66% of all income tax

the next 81% basic rate tax payers (thats you and me) pay about 33% of all income tax

which leaves the bottom 3% of earners whe pay under 0.4% of all income tax.

Once you see these figures you then realise why the 40% tax rate hasn't been increased for years and through pay rises more and more people end up in this bracket.

So the problem remains on how the country can raise enough taxes to pay for social needs of the population......over to you then!

 

[Octopus]

Oh FFS man
The country was left in a terrible state because the banks went belly up and we had to bail them out to the tune of several hundred billion quid. The tories would have had to do exactly the same or risk a revolution
Can't you see that?

Yes I can..... and if Labour has won in 2010 the situation now would not have been any different to how it is.

If the Tories had won in 2005, they were advocating bring public spending down.


And as for PFI, do you know why successive Governments like it? Because its an "off balance sheet" debt - a bit you you or I renting our tools and vans and paying somebody else to fund it...

 

[trev]

Even as we speak the country is owed many many billions by big corporations and millionaires who simply refuse to pay what they should. Then we have the loopholes which are exploited by the likes of Starbucks and Amazon.
Collect that and make sure those companies pay their due and there's your £70Bn
Thats just for starters.
I don't claim to have the answers Murdoch but I do have a strong sense of what is right and wrong and the way this lot are penalising the poor and sick is wrong no matter which way it's dressed up. I also don't see that I should have the answers because I'm not sitting there in Westminster telling people to take what ever medicine I think should be taken while ensuring I've got my nose pressed right down into the bottom of the trough.
If I had the answers maybe I'd be a much richer man than I am and I could sit in an ivory tower while a lot of "lesser people" struggle to get by

 

[trev]

If the Tories had won in 2005, they were advocating bring public spending down.

Crikey, the tories wanting to reduce public spending. Who's have thought that eh?
It's their thing mate, every tory politician I ever listened to has come out with that one.

 

[trev]

And as for PFI, do you know why successive Governments like it? Because its an "off balance sheet" debt - a bit you you or I renting our tools and vans and paying somebody else to fund it...

I'll never argue with you that PFI is a ridiculous system.

 

[Octopus]

Even as we speak the country is owed many many billions by big corporations and millionaires who simply refuse to pay what they should. Then we have the loopholes which are exploited by the likes of Starbucks and Amazon.
Collect that and make sure those companies pay their due and there's your £70Bn
Thats just for starters.
I don't claim to have the answers Murdoch but I do have a strong sense of what is right and wrong and the way this lot are penalising the poor and sick is wrong no matter which way it's dressed up. I also don't see that I should have the answers because I'm not sitting there in Westminster telling people to take what ever medicine I think should be taken while ensuring I've got my nose pressed right down into the bottom of the trough.
If I had the answers maybe I'd be a much richer man than I am and I could sit in an ivory tower while a lot of "lesser people" struggle to get by

And why did the head of HMRC "let off" Vodafone a £3B tax bill??

Read this:

Revealed: How mobile phone giants Vodafone and EE dodge their UK tax bills | This is Money

The EU needs to sort this out, but i'd wager a very large bet that they won't!

 

[trev]

You can put Atos and G4S into the same pot as them

 

[Octopus]

You can put Atos and G4S into the same pot as them

And Appliances Direct!

We bought a new fridge freezer off them a while back and I noticed that the credit card transaction was made in Dublin - another tax avoidance no doubt - and I can assure you I made the purchase via a sales centre "up north".

If there was a "simple" answer I'm sure that Milliband and Balls would have told us by now!

For me, to get around this "international" tax avoidance mess, taxes shouldn't be applied at a Corporation level on "profits" as we all know that profits for international companies can be massaged- they should be made on the "sales" revenue - so company A sells me in Woking something, tax is paid on the revenue. It wouldn't need to be much but then it couldn't be avoided!

 

[trev]

But suppose it were introduced and you and I were taxed on our gross income. One of us makes a loss one year.
What happens?

 

[Octopus]

But suppose it were introduced and you and I were taxed on our gross income. One of us makes a loss one year.
What happens?

Sales "tax" wouldn't apply to anyone who only operates within the UK - so it not relevent.

As I said this would simply be applied to companies who are multi-national and and selling into the UK, and in fact this shoud be applied across the EU.

So when Starbucks sells to your local "franchise" Starbucks, the revenue figure for the coffee sold is taxed - its that simple.

Mind you, if it was that simple, I'm sure HMRC would have done this by now, but as they are all lazy civil servants, all they want is an easy life, and investigating internnational companies is 10 x more difficult than investigating you and I!

 

[ferg]

And Appliances Direct!

We bought a new fridge freezer off them a while back and I noticed that the credit card transaction was made in Dublin - another tax avoidance no doubt - and I can assure you I made the purchase via a sales centre "up north".

If there was a "simple" answer I'm sure that Milliband and Balls would have told us by now!

For me, to get around this "international" tax avoidance mess, taxes shouldn't be applied at a Corporation level on "profits" as we all know that profits for international companies can be massaged- they should be made on the "sales" revenue - so company A sells me in Woking something, tax is paid on the revenue. It wouldn't need to be much but then it couldn't be avoided!

A bit like VAT????

 

[Diddy]

I am just going to answer points to the posts as I see them...I am having a wee drink you see lol.
So the point I want to tackle was - We all agree that class sizes and waiting lists came down during the last labour (Tory lite) government yes ? Then someone added but the answer was not to just chuck money at it ? As we say in jock land How ? How was the new hospitals and modernisation of existing stock going to happen in both nhs and education ? How do you do that without cash ? Us sparks moan about the cash we are not earning and yet you as a spark want these projects done for free ? Can't have it both ways can we ?
We want the best carers and yet we want the unemployed to do it for min wage...Who would you rather care for a loved one ? Someone who wanted to actually be a carer for a reasonable wage Or someone "forced" by the system to take the job at min wage ?

NHS staff....Do we want nurses who are trained and "want" to do the job for the love of it and are happy secure and well rewarded OR do you think it's ok that most don't earn what we call an average salary ?
Public sector workers.....My brother drives a bus that takes special needs kids to school....He has done so for 30 years, He "thought" he was retiring in 5 years on a decent pension which he paid into as well as his employer....Not any more Extra 7 years for him just to collect his pension which is now reduced.....There would have been a job for a young guy in 5 years time...not now there isn't. Demoralised isn't the word.
Tell me all day long about well "I haven't had a pay rise and my pensions gone"....Just because you have been mugged does not automatically mean you should want your neighbour mugged too just to "make it fair".
Tell me there is no money left.....Well the top 5% have never seen such an increase in wealth since the start of 2008 until now. There are plenty of ways we could save and raise cash without cutting the ordinary mans terms, conditions and pay. Nuclear deterrent for a start...who the ---- do we think we are buying and maintaining a nuke deterrent. We cant even use the bloody things without the USA's approval AND their guidance systems. Foreign aid , Bloody selling off our stuff at cut price to private companies ? Tax avoidance ? PLENTY of cash there just waiting to be got at......But no it is better to let the people feel the austerity as we are innit together lol.

 

[Octopus]

A bit like VAT????

You are a genius! A nice and simple answer.

Yes. So goods sold in the UK would be subject to a slightly higher rate - or if the sale is of products no currently taxed such as some foods then the tax would be added.

 

[Diddy]

Also the trouble we are in now

Nope that was the bankers...New labour were culpable by not reversing the Thatcher free market gambling that STILL goes on....Next !!! lol.

 

[Diddy]

And Appliances Direct!

If there was a "simple" answer I'm sure that Milliband and Balls would have told us by now!

I actually believe there are simple answers to fixing the tax system....But I believe that the big two parties NEED the cash that these big companies give to THEM to keep them in their million pound directorships and also both parties are in the pockets of big business now...Why do you think Labour/Milliband feels so brave when talking about unions and the funding we/they provide for the labour party.....Add to that the lobbying scams that go on daily. We are not talking about loose change either. And the result is you and I get shafted again.

 

[Dcf]

I actually believe there are simple answers to fixing the tax system....But I believe that the big two parties NEED the cash that these big companies give to THEM to keep them in their million pound directorships and also both parties are in the pockets of big business now...Why do you think Labour/Milliband feels so brave when talking about unions and the funding we/they provide for the labour party.....Add to that the lobbying scams that go on daily. We are not talking about loose change either. And the result is you and I get shafted again.

Good points there diddly.
no multi millionaire business man is going too contribute money to a political party without some kind off kickback down the line.
and I don't think it matters really who is in power as they all talk to each other and money talks n that.
Pfi deals were the work of the devil .
my own council sold out to get a new headquarters which can't house them all.
which I thought was the reason in the first place!
the council sold off buildings which were not theirs to sell as in the fact the had been gifted by philanthropist types back in the day.
and after a it all washed out ......
the council did not have enough space in their new council utopia for everyone let alone car parking.
we are at the mercy of these large construction/ bank consortia to charge whatever rates they want for 25 years for maintenance on their lowest denominator build in the first place.
nice one you c****

 

[UNG]

I will read the replies to my post's properly later...I have been out most of the day so have just skim read the replies. BUT 2 things stood out about the replies.
1. PFI started under the tories......so now I point that out like any good politician you spin it round and say well them labour lot used it much more and over used it...just lol - ANY government would have used that model because they get away scot free with the responsibility of paying for it or even answering to the electorate. Also I don't know how how many times I need to say it New Labour were not and are not a socialist government.
2. Why every time the word socialism is used do people just say well look at Russia. Just because they made a bugger of it does not mean the model is defunct. Just because Hitler ended up becoming a mass murdering psychopath does not mean that some of his policies (Of which he was fairly and squarely elected on were not very good policies), Karl Marx was not the fool/idiot that many "think" he was...the trouble with history is it is written by the winners of any given conflict.
If socialism is ALWAYS bad then why is the scandinavian countries doing so well ? And the flip side if capitalism is always good why did we have to use a socialist ideal to rescue the whole bloody world from collapse (There would have been rioting on the streets of the whole of the G8 btw if that idiot Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling had not led the world with the refinancing of the banks - The UK was 48 hours away from military presence on the streets to keep order. If you don't believe that then check out the memoirs of the countries top civil servants and permanent secretaries (The people who really run the country btw as they are never replaced no matter the government) of that week in 2008 when it all happened. The scenario was that one of our majors was basically not going to open it's doors in 24 hours (The monday) if they were not refinanced, This would have had a domino effect on ALL the others - nobody would have had ANY cash. No food - no fuel no power......The only 2 people with the plan to save the system were Brown and Darling, Hank Pulson (The yanks top man at the time) was whimpering like an 8yo school child as he was so out of his mind with worry about what was going to happen....It has even been reported that one CEO at one of the top UK banks went straight out and bought a whole farm as this was all unfolding (So he could feed his family as cahs would have been useless and non existent).
So what they done was refinance the banks - Socialism for the rich.....Well that is the way I see it.
So we have had recessions all through history - does that then follow that capitalism is the way forward ? I would venture that it is far from it.
Would I accept a 40% tax ? In a heartbeat mate - IF it meant that I/we were getting access to the best that there was/is in social justice and care.
Russia took it too far - Power corrupts, Man is his own worst enemy.
Lastly one poster said his mother said Thatchers era was much better than the 70's labour government. Better for who ? Apart from the fact that we are talking about ONE government which lasted 4 years and is not indicative of all the other socialist governments that we enjoyed that gave us lots of "good" things that we moan about and take for granted. Thatcherism was good for the people who went on to steal their childrens and grandchildrens future due to the completely selfish nature of the times. YOU are paying for the "success" of the Thatcher era now. Your kids will pay for it when they start to earn too. Also if you lived north of Watford you never even got a real slice of the pie....the further north the worse it was.
Anyway like I said I just skim read the replies.....I may well post more later.

Added you to my ignore list if you haven't got the courtesy to read the replies properly before replying why should I read yours

 

[Darkwood]

Here we go again.
The banking collapse was caused by the deregulation of the industry in the 1980s this eventually led to the betting shop that became. Another direct result of this was irresponsible lending to people who had no chance of repaying their loans which were often secured on properties that turned out to be worth nowhere near the values put on them by the banks which advanced the loans.
Yet another result was the willingness to loan money to anyone who could sign their name on a piece of paper.
Had the collapse happened under this administration they would have done EXACTLY THE SAME as the government did in 2008, they have admitted that. They would have had no other choice but to do so, it was a necessary evil to avert the catastrophe that would have followed.
Now, the next thing that's usually said is "Ah but Labour were in power for 13 years and did nothing to reverse the deregulation" well that's a pretty shallow argument because this lot have been in power for 4 years now and have done nothing either, nor are they likely to.
I'll acknowledge that tory-lite are unlikely to re regulate the industry, that does not mean that it does not need to be done.

You can't impose sanctions on a banking system that ultimately controls the governments moneys .. this has always been the case and always will ... stop been naughty or ill punish you and by the way we need to borrow X amount, increase our national debt but don't tell anyone.... sadly the reality check of the crash hasn't seen a lot of change.

A pupil cannot put his headmaster into detention no matter how unfair the headmaster has been.... it simply doesn't work that way.

 

[Diddy]

Added you to my ignore list if you haven't got the courtesy to read the replies properly before replying why should I read yours

Well thats mature. Don't know weather I will ever sleep as well again lol. I did preface by saying that I had skim read the replies first and was going to read and respond more properly later. But it's all cool I am happy for you not to read my posts. Have a good week.