Brexit Schmexit

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

What does it mean by more or less, is that per year? To me this isn't progressive enough, I would prefer to see the richer paying more and not getting universal benefits.

I also think the 33k threshold is too high for people paying less and getting more, I just can't see how the sums would add up.

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

does it? I've never seen anything suggesting that it's directly his fault.

 

like the leader speaking out about hate from party supporters, you mean...?

 

the gave a wrong credit - a minor error- and didn't check sources as thouroughly as they might have, and fessed-up even while no one was suggesting they'd done wrong.

Corbyn faked a whole situation, and then tried to avoid being honest about it.

 

yet the slow to jump to conclusions jumped to the same conclusions.

Meaning those quick conclusions were not wrongly placed.

 

but you're not fact checking.

Your posts often real you short of the most basic facts, while you also state wrong ones - like you did her (again, endlessly again ), claiming Eagle blamed Corbyn for the hate she was getting.

 

There is no great diversion created by Jez speaking out about hate.

There was much more of a diversion created by him not speaking out about hate. And by readers of the Canary who refuse all inconvenient facts.

In defence of the Canary and its ilk, there's so much anti Corbyn bias that's it's difficult to find something that lists pros and cons objectively.

And it's difficult to find other sites that are happy to link to actual primary sources. 

I do fact check, and I know no evidence was found regarding the window smashing. And I know loads of people corroborated Corbyn's account of people sitting in the aisles.

Plus, his video stated: 'this is the situation facing people every day' (paraphrased) so it was illustrative. it was literally not a news item, as it was a fanzine piece of how fab Corbyn was. The Guardian admitted this.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I just can't see how the sums would add up.

by fucking over the councils, and riding off the back of a rise in the PA by westminster that isn't being passed on (to just some?) in Scotland.

The above is just the marketing, of pretending it's something it isn't.

(tho having said that, it is an improvement - just not everything of the improvement the SNP are trying to suggest).

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, feral chile said:

In defence of the Canary and its ilk, there's so much anti Corbyn bias that's it's difficult to find something that lists pros and cons objectively.

nope, that's bollocks. All of the evidence is out there in the normal places (not necessarily in just one place), but the canary pretends the awkward bits aren't there at all.

You're reading such idiot bias you don't even understand what the traingate issue is, and keep on trying to argue "the train was full" like it means something.

And you're claiming Eagle blamed Jez, when she only blamed him for refusing to speak out over many months.

Quote

And it's difficult to find other sites that are happy to link to actual primary sources. 

which you don't read anyway.

Or are you now going to post to tell me about how you know the poorest are fucked over by immigration and have suffered a 20% reduction in wages as a consequence?

Cos you claimed to have read that primary source, while saying the poor were only racist and there was no effect onto them from immigration.

 

Quote

I do fact check,

and yet make false accusations against Eagle, and don't even understand what traingate is about, and claim a 20% wage cut doesn't exist. :lol:

 

Quote

and I know no evidence was found regarding the window smashing. And I know loads of people corroborated Crbyn's account of people sitting in the aisles.

No one claimed to have evidence of the window smashing. No one denied that people sat on the floor on the train.

Having useless facts at your fingertips while missing the point entirely is not fact checking.

 

Quote

Plus, his video stated: 'this is the situation facing people every day' (paraphrased) so it was illustrative.

care to tell me a single person in the UK who is unaware that 'this is the situation facing people every day'?

 

Quote

it was literally not a news item, as it was a fanzine piece of how fab Corbyn was. The Guardian admitted this.

So fab and principled he has to fake stuff.

Corbyn faking stuff is news.

Just like DD 'faking' stuff about "indepth reports" was news.

Edited December 16, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

9 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

What does it mean by more or less, is that per year? To me this isn't progressive enough, I would prefer to see the richer paying more and not getting universal benefits.

I also think the 33k threshold is too high for people paying less and getting more, I just can't see how the sums would add up.

That's why in my edit I said I agreed with the principle that tax is a subscription fee for a civilised society. I like that notion, I've always thought so.

maybe if labour can campaign to persuade people along those lines, they won't have to compromise principles to get elected. move people to them, not the other way round.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

nope, that's bollocks. All of the evidence is out there in the normal places (not necessarily in just one place), but the canary pretends the awkward bits aren't there at all.

You're reading such idiot bias you don't even understand what the traingate issue is, and keep on trying to argue "the train was full" like it means something.

And you're claiming Eagle blamed Jez, when she only blamed him for refusing to speak out over many months.

which you don't read anyway.

Or are you now going to post to tell me about how you know the poorest are fucked over by immigration and have suffered a 20% reduction in wages as a consequence?

Cos you claimed to have read that primary source, while saying the poor were only racist and there was no effect onto them from immigration.

 

and yet make false accusations against Eagle, and don't even understand what traingate is about, and claim a 20% wage cut doesn't exist. :lol:

 

No one claimed to have evidence if the window smashing. No one denied that people sat on the floor on the train.

Having useless facts at your fingertips while missing the point entirely is not fact checking.

 

care to tell me a single person in the UK who is unaware that 'this is the situation facing people every day'?

 

So fab and principled he has to fake stuff.

Corbyn faking stuff is news.

Just like DD 'faking' stuff about "indepth reports" was news.

He didn't fake stuff. You're choosing to view it that way. just as I put forward the idea that eagle could be accused of similar.

Personally, I disapprove of all this nitpicking, and each side having to counter all this crap (often it's even to check what was really said in the first place, as you point out).

We need solidarity.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

move people to them, not the other way round.

i'd say plenty of 'the people' are waaaaay ahead of Corbyn, while the rest don't want to be moved and won't be moved, but they'll be happy to have more freebies (and today's youngsters who complain how it's wrong how the costs fall on youngsters will happily shift even greater costs onto the next youngsters).

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

He didn't fake stuff.

he did.

And then he did his best to try and avoid admitting he'd faked it.

 

Just now, feral chile said:

You're choosing to view it that way. just as I put forward the idea that eagle could be accused of similar.

only if she smashed her own window

 

Just now, feral chile said:

Personally, I disapprove of all this nitpicking, and each side having to counter all this crap (often it's even to check what was really said in the first place, as you point out).

there's no nitpicking.

There's the facts.

And then there's you, calling Jez a liar.

 

Just now, feral chile said:

We need solidarity.

then get with the facts, because there's nothing solid in fantasies.

Perhaps start by ending your campaign of calling Jez a liar? - and recognise the 'crime' of traingate was him faking it as he admitted doing.

[feral chile]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

he did.

And then he did his best to try and avoid admitting he'd faked it.

 

only if she smashed her own window

 

there's no nitpicking.

There's the facts.

And then there's you, calling Jez a liar.

 

then get with the facts, because there's nothing solid in fantasies.

Perhaps start by ending your campaign of calling Jez a liar? - and recognise the 'crime' of traingate was him faking it as he admitted doing.

We might as well draw a line under this, we're never going to reach an agreement and we both agree (I think) that there are more important things to worry about.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Eagle didn't say it was Jez's fault.

Eagle asked Jez - for the nth time - to speak out against it. He'd been refusing to do so for many months already by that point, while the amount of hate being thrown around had been growing.

May *has* spoken out against the sort of hate thrown at Soubry, btw.
(tho of course, as the tories aren't a luvvy-dovey party, there's less expectations for them to do this sort of thing).

And who is she holding accountable?

[zahidf]

hopefully he will be begging on the streets soon

[Comfy Bean]

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

(tho having said that, it is an improvement - just not everything of the improvement the SNP are trying to suggest).

It’s another small step in the right direction. Like the lifting of the public sector pay cap.

Coming after the council tax band rises that only affected the larger houses the direction of travel is crystal clear.

With the previous ending of rates relief for shooting estates we now have changes to the charity status rules for private golf courses and schools.

Those on the lower salaries now pay less than elsewhere in the kingdom and those on the top salaries pay more.

This direction of travel will continue. The small steps I’d guess are aimed at trying to take the Country/ votes with them.

Most will be happy to pay more to support the freebies ( health, education, public services ) that you mention.

The Tory Unionist party are raging at paying more. Perhaps Ruth will get so upset she will move to a safe seat down South to ease the tax burden ;-)

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

by fucking over the councils, and riding off the back of a rise in the PA by westminster that isn't being passed on (to just some?) in Scotland.

The above is just the marketing, of pretending it's something it isn't.

(tho having said that, it is an improvement - just not everything of the improvement the SNP are trying to suggest).

I didn't realize it was a Scotland thing. Without seeing the sums my gut instinct is that the extra money coming in won't replace the addition costs. I can imagine for example that elderly personal care is a huge cost.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I didn't realize it was a Scotland thing. Without seeing the sums my gut instinct is that the extra money coming in won't replace the addition costs. I can imagine for example that elderly personal care is a huge cost.

It already exists and has for years (labour introduced it) so it's not a new cost. 

I agree with comfy: it's a small step in the right direction.

It seems the Greens will make additional council funding the price of there support, just as they did last year.

I voted green.

Just saying.

[Comfy Bean]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I didn't realize it was a Scotland thing. Without seeing the sums my gut instinct is that the extra money coming in won't replace the addition costs. I can imagine for example that elderly personal care is a huge cost.

Do you agree around the general principle here ?

Generate more revenue by increasing taxes for those who can afford it to pay for things like care that you mention.

The SNP have set their stall out as have the Tories.

Down the road, the gap between what the high earners pay in Scotland will widen compared to rUK. 

Its a small step to address a massive problem. Atleast they are taking it is my view.

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

It already exists and has for years (labour introduced it) so it's not a new cost. 

I agree with comfy: it's a small step in the right direction.

It seems the Greens will make additional council funding the price of there support, just as they did last year.

I voted green.

Just saying.

Agreed. I saw our man Patrick Harvie on the box earlier.

His influence is such a positive one. Top man.

I think the council staff pay rise is a larger % increase for those on the lower grades.

As you know, I’m another rabid nationalist that didn’t vote Snp Snp :-)

[feral chile]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-tory-rebellion-amendment-7-anna-soubry-daily-mail-dominic-grieve-a8111131.html

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

It already exists and has for years (labour introduced it) so it's not a new cost. 

I agree with comfy: it's a small step in the right direction.

It seems the Greens will make additional council funding the price of there support, just as they did last year.

I voted green.

Just saying.

So how are we defining personal care here?

[LJS]

7 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

So how are we defining personal care here?

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Support-Social-Care/Support/Adult-Social-Care/Free-Personal-Nursing-Care

 

[pink_triangle]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Support-Social-Care/Support/Adult-Social-Care/Free-Personal-Nursing-Care

 

So is personal care the same as what I would call social care? It's just a term as a community health professional I have ever come across before, which is why I wondered if there was a difference.

If it is free social care the devil is in the detail. My experience in England is that the main issue is not funding social care, but funding it to the level that the patients needs can be met in the way they want which is usually staying in their own home. Is Scotland commiting to pay for whatever the individual chooses, or pay for what is the cheapest option, normally residential care?

[pink_triangle]

9 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Do you agree around the general principle here ?

Generate more revenue by increasing taxes for those who can afford it to pay for things like care that you mention.

On first view it's a mixed bag, Im also unclear on the before and after to make a good assessment if it's a positive change.

I'm all for the rich paying more, but on first glance it didn't seem radical enough. To me the threshold where people pay less is too high.

I'm not generally in favour of universal benefits (with some exceptions like the NHS) and in terms of care I agreed with the last Tory manifesto that using money locked in property for paying for care in principle makes sense. I have no particular interest in protecting inheritance.

[Comfy Bean]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

On first view it's a mixed bag, Im also unclear on the before and after to make a good assessment if it's a positive change.

 

The before is pretty much what you have on income tax.

The Snp had previously been criticised for not using the new powers.

They have now introduced a new tax system to rUK.

In summary, folk at the lower end pay less from next year and those at the high end pay more.

Tweaks also to private golf clubs and schools as mentioned earlier.

Free education, prescriptions and care are not new. 

Lifting the public sector pay cap was the other new announcement. Need support from libs or Greens to get the budget through.

Most accept we have to pay more.

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

 

Most accept we have to pay more.

What feral posted suggested most people (wages under 33k) were paying less.

[Comfy Bean]

26 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

What feral posted suggested most people (wages under 33k) were paying less.

You have to read my whole post not just the line you have quoted in isolation.

I think the general direction Scotland is going in is clear. Most people, not the Tories, are comfortable with it. Those at the top end pay more than rUK with the lower paid paying less.

Seems fair. 

Do you disagree with the free care position? What about the uni costs on further education?

[LJS]

43 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

What feral posted suggested most people (wages under 33k) were paying less.

Is there a problem with this?