Don't vote Tory

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

perhaps I read the wrong paper 

https://www.ft.com/content/b5a8867e-28ea-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c

can't get the damn link to work....never mind.  What I am saying is  some people see it differently to others 

and that's because some people ignore context while others look at it.

[waterfalls212434]

So we`re not just bashing corbyn and the left now, now we`re bashing refugees....fuck me this is an ugly corner of this forum really isnt it?  If your really going to accuse refugees of being responsible for said increase in crime you better go way the fuck back in time with your stats because `refugees` into this country and other European countries isnt a modern thing, wonder if youd have accused the polish jews sheltered in the uk during ww2 of the same for example? Heres an idea? if you dont like refugees......STOP BACKING PEOPLE WHO PLAY A LARGE ROLE IN FUCKING UP THEIR HOME COUNTRY'S (by miitary action or the consequences of that military action allowing very evil people to come to power!)

[arcade fireman]

4 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

perhaps I read the wrong paper 

https://www.ft.com/content/b5a8867e-28ea-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c

can't get the damn link to work....never mind.  What I am saying is  some people see it differently to others 

I'm only getting the headline as there's a paywall. But "Germany sees rise in crime committed by asylum seekers" doesn't tell us that much. All it tells us is that more asylum seekers before are committing crimes.

Is that more or less than the population? Or rather - is that more or less than if we take a similar sample of non refugees, adjusted for many of the things which influence crime e.g. socioeconomic status? 

FT isn't the worst paper mind.

[babyblade41]

Just now, arcade fireman said:

I'm only getting the headline as there's a paywall. But "Germany sees rise in crime committed by asylum seekers" doesn't tell us that much. All it tells us is that more asylum seekers before are committing crimes.

Is that more or less than the population? Or rather - is that more or less than if we take a similar sample of non refugees, adjusted for many of the things which influence crime e.g. socioeconomic status? 

FT isn't the worst paper mind.

Sorry I can't get the whole article up, I'm knee deep in other things today so can't faff about finding one... I'll try later 

[Mr.Tease]

May makes an awful scripted joke about Jeremy Corbyn being naked- desperate stuff

[DeanoL]

6 hours ago, mikegday said:

Corbyn is campaigning on the premise that the richest 5% will pay for everyone else - and obviously the remaining 95% are more than happy to vote for that. I do wonder what would happen if he was honest with the electorate and said we'd ALL have to pay a bit more.

Corbyn will get nowhere near 95% of the vote though...

6 hours ago, mikegday said:

You could always ask your employer to take a 15% cut out of your wage and direct it to your nearest school or neighbour? If everyone done that then we wouldn't even be having this debate. But I suspect everyone won't, why? Again, everyone wants someone else to foot the bill.

Plenty of people donate a regular percentage of their earnings to charity. Charities we need because the government can't afford to do it themselves. But we can't just rely on the generous people. It has to be compulsory or most people will opt not to.

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

someone asked in here the other day how come the polls are varying so much. I came across an article yesterday (I forget where, so don't have a link) that gave the low-down.

Apparently all the pollsters have changed their methodolies since 2015, i the hope of improving them - but all of them have to make some assumptions against the raw 'who I'll vote for' data.

YouGov are showing the smallest gap between Labour and tory because they're taking youngsters at their word that they'll vote, and so presuming a 60%(ish) turnout for that group.

Other pollsters are using the facts of history, where youngsters say (at around 60%) they'll go and vote, but only 40(ish)% actually did in the last 2 elections.

Who is right? We can only guess. However....

When those youngsters are asked what's motivating them to vote this time, free uni is top of the list. That's the same reason given for why many would vote Clegg in 2010, when they also claimed they'd go and vote at around 60% - but only turned out at 43%.

There is some hard data on the number of young people that registered to vote now? I'm not sure what it says though and how it compares to 2015.

I also think this year the shy Tory effect will be minimal and there may be a shy Labour effect. Lots of Labour voters who publicly declare how they can't stand Corbyn finally getting to the polls and voting for him regardless. And outside of this thread and Glastonbury there's zero shame to be had in saying you're voting Tory, and a good amount of society will laugh at you if you admit to planning to vote for Corbyn. He's very much the embarrassment this time, for better or worse! (It's exaccerbated by this not being a 'real' election, but one May has called and is essentially treating as a way to shore up her position - we could easily have not had it and still have a Tory govt, so voting Tory is even more of a "status quo" vote than normal).

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So if the EU say we can have a deal for £100Bn (or £200Bn, or £300Bn) a year in cash, that would be a better deal than no deal?

Your take is flawed.

The scary thing is: maybe yes. "No deal" will cause massive economic confusion and collapse, both for us and the EU, though we will have the worst of it. It obviously wouldn't be fair but it might well be less economically damaging...

4 hours ago, babyblade41 said:

Anyone needing medical care due to alcohol induced medical emergency should be billed, I've been in A & E at the weekend that is rammed with idiots who think its OK for them to get steaming and expect the NHS to foot the bill to keep them safe. Plus the time it takes of any police officers involved as they can't leave until the patient is deemed well enough

Why single this out though? Tax on alcohol already brings in a lot of money - I'd guess it's still profitable long term much like smoking. But yeah, smoking, should we do the same for lung cancer sufferers who have been smoking? And what about the overweight and obese? Why should we treat them for heart disease when they won't exercise? Indeed, maybe NHS treatment should require you to present records of exercise at least three times a week at a qualifying gym, and food receipts to show you're living a healthy lifestyle. Because if you don't look after yourself, why should the state?

And lets start charging for A&E for self inflicted accidents. If you fell down the stairs and broke your leg, you should have been more careful. Where does it end?

Or is it just alcohol, because you're older and don't go out drinking anymore so know it won't effect you?

Quote

I believe in leaving the EU , maybe a sticky wicket for many here but I honestly believe in having full control rather than to be dictated to by a failing EU , it's a question of either in or out as none of us know how it will turn out but think we will be better off out long term

But remember we give up any influence and control over the rest of the EU too. Which is worrying as they're very close by.

Quote

I want to feel safe here  and for me that means committing to an up to date defence programme including nuclear just to deter any one else deciding to take a potshot at us whenever they feel the need , and I know the Labour Party agrees with this policy especially with Trident .

Fair enough. We probably differ on this one but if nuclear war starts I want to be dead.

Quote

In my view if you can't afford to look after children don't bloody have them , welfare should be a safety net not a life style choice and not all but we see every day where in families no one works and multiple children are in tow.

This may surprise you but I agree with you 100% on a theoretical level. The problem is people will do it regardless. And if you don't house and feed them... the kids die. And the kids weren't the ones who screwed up. You need to understand it's a nice theoretical position but practically the only way it works is: let the children die. I'm not bullshitting or over-stating this. That's literally the only place that policy ends. Sure, it's unfortunate that this incentivises people to have kids they can't afford but... do you have another alternative?

Quote

more of a heavy rock fan than a lot of the music that is advertised

Come see The Men Who Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing at the Rocket Lounge on Thursday. One of the heaviest bands at the entire festival but all their songs are about the Victorians. Although be warned they do have a political song that is very pro-Whigs.

[babyblade41]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Corbyn will get nowhere near 95% of the vote though...

Plenty of people donate a regular percentage of their earnings to charity. Charities we need because the government can't afford to do it themselves. But we can't just rely on the generous people. It has to be compulsory or most people will opt not to.

There is some hard data on the number of young people that registered to vote now? I'm not sure what it says though and how it compares to 2015.

I also think this year the shy Tory effect will be minimal and there may be a shy Labour effect. Lots of Labour voters who publicly declare how they can't stand Corbyn finally getting to the polls and voting for him regardless. And outside of this thread and Glastonbury there's zero shame to be had in saying you're voting Tory, and a good amount of society will laugh at you if you admit to planning to vote for Corbyn. He's very much the embarrassment this time, for better or worse! (It's exaccerbated by this not being a 'real' election, but one May has called and is essentially treating as a way to shore up her position - we could easily have not had it and still have a Tory govt, so voting Tory is even more of a "status quo" vote than normal).

The scary thing is: maybe yes. "No deal" will cause massive economic confusion and collapse, both for us and the EU, though we will have the worst of it. It obviously wouldn't be fair but it might well be less economically damaging...

Why single this out though? Tax on alcohol already brings in a lot of money - I'd guess it's still profitable long term much like smoking. But yeah, smoking, should we do the same for lung cancer sufferers who have been smoking? And what about the overweight and obese? Why should we treat them for heart disease when they won't exercise? Indeed, maybe NHS treatment should require you to present records of exercise at least three times a week at a qualifying gym, and food receipts to show you're living a healthy lifestyle. Because if you don't look after yourself, why should the state?

And lets start charging for A&E for self inflicted accidents. If you fell down the stairs and broke your leg, you should have been more careful. Where does it end?

Or is it just alcohol, because you're older and don't go out drinking anymore so know it won't effect you?

But remember we give up any influence and control over the rest of the EU too. Which is worrying as they're very close by.

Fair enough. We probably differ on this one but if nuclear war starts I want to be dead.

This may surprise you but I agree with you 100% on a theoretical level. The problem is people will do it regardless. And if you don't house and feed them... the kids die. And the kids weren't the ones who screwed up. You need to understand it's a nice theoretical position but practically the only way it works is: let the children die. I'm not bullshitting or over-stating this. That's literally the only place that policy ends. Sure, it's unfortunate that this incentivises people to have kids they can't afford but... do you have another alternative?

Come see The Men Who Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing at the Rocket Lounge on Thursday. One of the heaviest bands at the entire festival but all their songs are about the Victorians. Although be warned they do have a political song that is very pro-Whigs.

Deano, I see your points and very eloquently put, my disagreement on your take on the alcohol bit is that being obese, smoking etc doesn't cause people to beat seven shades of crap out of each other like excess alcohol can do on a Friday and Saturday night . I am a smoker, I don't go to the pub as we don't have one here in the middle of nowhere so prefer drinking at hoe and def not tee total 

 

The child welfare is a valid point, but there are people who do use the multi child policy for the cash it generates , I know of 2 such people myself , but take away the benefits for multiple children and some , not all might think before procreating willy nilly. a family member is a child abuse and domestic violence investigator . some couldn't give a monkeys nuts about the kids just the benefit payment that comes with them

Thank you for the heads up at the Rocket Lounge.. I'm quite noticeable so could possibly go down and have a look

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

Deano, I see your points and very eloquently put, my disagreement on your take on the alcohol bit is that being obese, smoking etc doesn't cause people to beat seven shades of crap out of each other like excess alcohol can do on a Friday and Saturday night . I am a smoker, I don't go to the pub as we don't have one here in the middle of nowhere so prefer drinking at hoe and def not tee total 

But then you end up charging the victims of drunken aggressors surely? I'm certainly on side that if someone commits assault and is found guilty they should pay for the treatment of the victim - I'm not sure if we do that already.

[babyblade41]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But then you end up charging the victims of drunken aggressors surely? I'm certainly on side that if someone commits assault and is found guilty they should pay for the treatment of the victim - I'm not sure if we do that already.

victims of assault shouldn't be made to pay no, but those who are bought in under police guard and those who are just blind drunk and chucking up on the pavement should .

 

Right have to be off again...animal feeding time 

[Smeble]

6 hours ago, Spindles said:

50% more than I earn.  To someone on £80k a council tax bill of £1000 represents just 1.25% of their earnings, to someone on £12k it represents nearly 10%

and what percentage of their wage goes back to the government in tax? The person on £80k pays almost 50 times more tax.

 

[arcade fireman]

17 minutes ago, Smeble said:

and what percentage of their wage goes back to the government in tax? The person on £80k pays almost 50 times more tax.

 

Yes, someone on 80k does pay a lot more tax. That's a progressive tax system for you. Our tax rates are lower than some countries and higher than others.

But someone on 90k pays £30000 in tax/NI combined. Under these tax proposals they would pay £30500. Forgive me for suggesting this is hardly something too onerous. 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, waterfalls212434 said:

So we`re not just bashing corbyn and the left now, now we`re bashing refugees....fuck me this is an ugly corner of this forum really isnt it?  If your really going to accuse refugees of being responsible for said increase in crime you better go way the fuck back in time with your stats because `refugees` into this country and other European countries isnt a modern thing, wonder if youd have accused the polish jews sheltered in the uk during ww2 of the same for example? Heres an idea? if you dont like refugees......STOP BACKING PEOPLE WHO PLAY A LARGE ROLE IN FUCKING UP THEIR HOME COUNTRY'S (by miitary action or the consequences of that military action allowing very evil people to come to power!)

It's pretty clear that refugees ARE responsible for an increase in crime in Germany. The truth can be said, as ewell as the context around it. 

Meanwhile, while the UK bombed Libya, it would have fucked itself up with or without UK bombs, and the UK bombed Libya with a UN mandate too - and supposedly your mate Jezza is fully supportive of UN mandates for bombing.

So are you condemning your mate? Or is your narrative in need of adjustment?

[Teddington]

19 minutes ago, Smeble said:

and what percentage of their wage goes back to the government in tax? The person on £80k pays almost 50 times more tax.

 

Correct. 

This is the bit I don't get from a lot of the left leaning people on here.

The thing that pays for hospitals, schools, roads, benefits etc is ABSOLUTE money.

The "rich" pay more of that than anyone else but are somehow lambasted and portrayed as the "enemy" for doing so....... 

[babyblade41]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

It's pretty clear that refugees ARE responsible for an increase in crime in Germany. The truth can be said, as ewell as the context around it. 

Meanwhile, while the UK bombed Libya, it would have fucked itself up with or without UK bombs, and the UK bombed Libya with a UN mandate too - and supposedly your mate Jezza is fully supportive of UN mandates for bombing.

So are you condemning your mate? Or is your narrative in need of adjustment?

Have you ever thought of working in TV or radio ? ...you'd make an excellent political interviewer... John Peenar comes  to mind .  Your knowledge for facts and figures can shoot all of us down in flames 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

There is some hard data on the number of young people that registered to vote now? I'm not sure what it says though and how it compares to 2015.

I've no idea how it compares. I know there was a recent surge of registrations before the deadline, but that doesn't necessarily mean more youngsters when the registration rules have recently changed.

Either way it doesn't mean very much unless they follow thru with a vote - and traditionally they don't, even in circumstances most likely to motivate them.

 

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

I also think this year the shy Tory effect will be minimal and there may be a shy Labour effect.

I think you might be falling into confirmation bias with that one.

 

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Lots of Labour voters who publicly declare how they can't stand Corbyn finally getting to the polls and voting for him regardless.

tho that's just the segment that have 'returned' to Labour and put Labour back to somewhere around their normal losing position.

Those people help of course, but they're not the people a victory would come from. A victory *has* to come from people who voted Tory last time and might swap to Labour this time.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

Your knowledge for facts and figures can shoot all of us down in flames 

all it takes is taking an interest, all the time, and not only when someone is trying to wave nice things in your face while pretending they're free.

[babyblade41]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

all it takes is taking an interest, all the time, and not only when someone is trying to wave nice things in your face while pretending they're free.

agreed, and an answer I would expect 

[DeanoL]

32 minutes ago, Teddington said:

Correct. 

This is the bit I don't get from a lot of the left leaning people on here.

The thing that pays for hospitals, schools, roads, benefits etc is ABSOLUTE money.

The "rich" pay more of that than anyone else but are somehow lambasted and portrayed as the "enemy" for doing so....... 

Quote

 

I've no idea how it compares. I know there was a recent surge of registrations before the deadline, but that doesn't necessarily mean more youngsters when the registration rules have recently changed.

Either way it doesn't mean very much unless they follow thru with a vote - and traditionally they don't, even in circumstances most likely to motivate them.

 

Some quick googling: 246K on deadline day under 25 in 2017, vs 137k in 2015. If you switch to "young person" as under 35 it's 453K 2017 vs 289k 2015.

Overall registration on deadline day 2015: 485k , 2017: 622k. Under 35s as a % was 60% in 2015 and is 73% in 2017.

Those were the easiest stats to get from https://www.gov.uk/performance/register-to-vote/registrations-by-age-group - I've not done the full announcement to deadline day as that's a pain to get but there's nothing that suggests any pattern to certain age groups registering earlier.

Personally I'd take a registration immediately ahead of the election as a very strong indicator to vote. But yes that doesn't extend to already registered young people.

But there's also the fact that Brexit is fresh in people's minds and young people were in the main against that. It's a really stark warning to those who didn't go out and vote about what can happen if they don't. It's important to remember the context of this election: it's two years after the last one, and one year after the referendum. It's not the normal "five years have passed, do we shake it up or give them another shot" election. People are still angry about the last two votes.

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think you might be falling into confirmation bias with that one.

Yeah maybe I'm just embarrassed to be voting Corbyn. Watched some interviews last night and god is he boring...

Quote

 

tho that's just the segment that have 'returned' to Labour and put Labour back to somewhere around their normal losing position.

Those people help of course, but they're not the people a victory would come from. A victory *has* to come from people who voted Tory last time and might swap to Labour this time.

 

I think you're probably right but to me the question is how far do returning voters plus new voters push Labour? Milliband ran a far closer race than he was ever given credit for. Labour were expected to be single largest party in 2015 so it was a crushing defeat by that metric. But it also delivered the smallest Tory majority government since 1852. If all those voters were to return, that gives the baseline, plus Corbyn makes a good showing with new voters/young people that should be enough to tip us over into a hung parliament. That's still a lot of ifs though. 

Essentially yeah, I might be right that there's a shy Labour effect with returning voters. And I might be right that young people are actually going to go vote this time. I'd need to be right about both for Corbyn to have any shot at even forcing a hung parliament. That's unlikely!

[waterfalls212434]

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=6688

doesn't really sound like corbyn supports bombing campaigns does it now?  with regards to lybia he voted AGAINST the establishment of the `no fly zone` he also spoke out often about the use of military force in the country and against David Camerons government at the time though who through the UK issued £231 million-worth of arms exports licences to Libya and £55 million of licences to Saudi Arabia in the months leading up to the Libya crisis....thats right folks....we were arming the very people we then went on to bomb! 

Now if you want to have any actual facts that make sense to anyone but your lil pet tory pal youve devloped a kinship with im all ears, but if you just want to once a fucking gain feed me a load of shit with no proof and based more on opinion then actual fact....then do one!

 

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=6688

doesn't really sound like corbyn supports bombing campaigns does it now?  with regards to lybia he voted AGAINST the establishment of the `no fly zone` he also spoke out often about the use of military force in the country and against David Camerons government at the time though who through the UK issued £231 million-worth of arms exports licences to Libya and £55 million of licences to Saudi Arabia in the months leading up to the Libya crisis....thats right folks....we were arming the very people we then went on to bomb! 

Now if you want to have any actual facts that make sense to anyone but your lil pet tory pal youve devloped a kinship with im all ears, but if you just want to once a fucking gain feed me a load of shit with no proof and based more on opinion then actual fact....then do one!

OK, so thanks for confirming that when Jezza says he'll work thru the UN he doesn't mean he'll actually do anything.

Which I know of course. The only military action he'd think about backing was by Iran (cos he has) or similar, or the IRA, or an attack on the USA (very probably ). 

Which isn't the sort of thing which concerns me much, as it happens, tho i suspect there's plenty who might have some huge issues with those sorts of attitudes.

[babyblade41]

Right all you knowledgable labour supporters ,,,can anyone explain the LVT that JC has hidden away and how it would work.?

Living in a rural area I'm wondering how this would impact on my rescue operation .  The council tax is hard enough but it was a land value tax I'm not sure how it's valued... can't seem to find a lot of info 

[waterfalls212434]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

OK, so thanks for confirming that when Jezza says he'll work thru the UN he doesn't mean he'll actually do anything.

Which I know of course. The only military action he'd think about backing was by Iran (cos he has) or similar, or the IRA, or an attack on the USA (very probably ). 

Which isn't the sort of thing which concerns me much, as it happens, tho i suspect there's plenty who might have some huge issues with those sorts of attitudes.

corbyn would back an attack on the usa would he? even though hes anti nuclear and hed know full well that any such attack would involve some kind of nuclear retaliation? See  when your coming up with utter bullshit like that you forget that you have to at least try and make it sound logical to have it not laughed out of the place! Your fucking loony toons mate, utterly ridiculous. this conversation isnt even worth having anymore if your just gonna pull statements out of your arse (where have I seen that before) besides its pretty much simmered down to you and tory boy anyway agreeing with each other in an echo chamber so...........

 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

Right all you knowledgable labour supporters ,,,can anyone explain the LVT that JC has hidden away and how it would work.?

Living in a rural area I'm wondering how this would impact on my rescue operation .  The council tax is hard enough but it was a land value tax I'm not sure how it's valued... can't seem to find a lot of info 

Not 100% sure but from what I've read, while council tax works by taxing the overall value of a property, Land Value Tax would impose an annual charge on the rental value of land, not counting any improvements such as houses built on it.

It would mean that a vacant plot in the middle of a row of houses would have the same value as the plots that had houses on them. Agricultural land would also be taxed in the same way.

Basically if you have a house and garden you're likely end up paying more. I think.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, waterfalls212434 said:

corbyn would back an attack on the usa would he? even though hes anti nuclear and hed know full well that any such attack would involve some kind of nuclear retaliation? See  when your coming up with utter bullshit like that you forget that you have to at least try and make it sound logical to have it not laughed out of the place! Your fucking loony toons mate, utterly ridiculous. this conversation isnt even worth having anymore if your just gonna pull statements out of your arse (where have I seen that before) besides its pretty much simmered down to you and tory boy anyway agreeing with each other in an echo chamber so...........

 

the loony is the guy who thought I was serious that with part. To sane people the '(very probably )' might have just given it away. :)

What I was really getting at is that his aversion to war is just about absolute if it's by the west towards others, and when he says the UN will play it's part, he really means it'll only play a meaningful part if it agrees with Jeremy.

Which i knew, like I said. And it doesn't particularly concern me. But these things should be out in the open (or is he ashamed?), via which people can then decide if it's something they agree with.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Ommadawn said:

Not 100% sure but from what I've read, while council tax works by taxing the overall value of a property, Land Value Tax would impose an annual charge on the rental value of land, not counting any improvements such as houses built on it.

It would mean that a vacant plot in the middle of a row of houses would have the same value as the plots that had houses on them. Agricultural land would also be taxed in the same way.

Basically if you have a house and garden you're likely end up paying more. I think.

Council tax doesn't tax the overall value of the property. It's done by bandings, and where those bandings were deliberately set to benefit those with larger properties.

It was the ratings system that the council tax replaced that worked by property value, and that's what we need to get back to. It has its own flaws of course, but is much better than council tax, and LVT is just what politicians have come up with to avoid having to talk about re-introducing the ratings system.

But like all things doing it properly will not exempt 95% from having to pay, so idjut ideas like LVT get prompted with a pretence that it'll be free to most peeps.