No *country* perhaps, but that doesn't stop ISIS from plotting against us, and given Corbyn's record of sucking up to terrorists, I do *NOT* want him as PM!

 

What constitutes sucking up? What do you imagine he'd do that May wouldn't? He certainly seems to be a lot more invested in finding a solution to that problem.

This 'magic money tree' thing is so hopelessly ironic considering the Labour manifesto is actually costed unlike the Tory one... Not suggesting that it has 100% of the solutions but at least they've tried to explain where the money comes from! :unsure:

Rumour has it the magic money tree can only grow if watered with the tears of starving children.

This 'magic money tree' thing is so hopelessly ironic considering the Labour manifesto is actually costed unlike the Tory one... Not suggesting that it has 100% of the solutions but at least they've tried to explain where the money comes from! :unsure:

 

Agreed, but their forecasts are over estimated and I don't like how they go after the middle-class (as always - the same goes for the Tories too). I think the reasons why the Tories have not announced where their money is coming from is likely to be due to pissing a lot of their core voters off! Clearly they thought they could get away with it due to the mess of the Labour Leadership.

This 'magic money tree' thing is so hopelessly ironic considering the Labour manifesto is actually costed unlike the Tory one... Not suggesting that it has 100% of the solutions but at least they've tried to explain where the money comes from! :unsure:

 

Mostly from Tory voters/supporters, which is why the Tory vote remains solid, unlike that of the minor parties.

 

Ah but the Tories do have a magic money tree. Just look at their logo.

 

On the nuclear issue, is it really likely that North Korea would nuke the South. How would they protect themselves from the fallout? Even if they did, would it be our job to retaliate? Kim Jong Un is clearly unhinged so surely he is one of the people least likely to worry about a retaliatory strike.

 

As Corbyn has said, if things ever get to the point where he might be under real pressure to use a nuclear weapon, it will be the result of a catastrophic failure by the government of the day. He could have gone on to say that, if the government had failed so badly, he would have resigned before the issue of a nuclear strike arose.

Mostly from Tory voters/supporters, which is why the Tory vote remains solid, unlike that of the minor parties.

 

Which minor party is this - Labour on 40% which had landalides a few years ago when the right wing press werwn't threatened they would upend their masters' taxation, or the SNP that dominate Scotland? :)

 

I most certainly DO want a pacifist pm, as did most others before the press told them otherwise. Scrap nukes. They have never been used, should never be used and are a pointless wastw of resources.

 

Tory vote is stable due to press propaganda and HUGE money from the Elite.

 

 

No *country* perhaps, but that doesn't stop ISIS from plotting against us, and given Corbyn's record of sucking up to terrorists, I do *NOT* want him as PM!

 

Give me strength it's like talking to a brick wall!!

 

Who said he sucks up to them - the S!n, Daily Fail? Well f*** them. They are propaganda rags. Any other evidence? No? Thatcher and the Tories also talked to the IRA but in secret. The end.

 

And nukes do nothing, nothing to deter Isis so what the hell is your correlation there?

Agreed, but their forecasts are over estimated and I don't like how they go after the middle-class (as always - the same goes for the Tories too). I think the reasons why the Tories have not announced where their money is coming from is likely to be due to pissing a lot of their core voters off! Clearly they thought they could get away with it due to the mess of the Labour Leadership.

 

At least there are no ridiculous empty pledges like 'bringing down net migration to below 100,000' without considering the massive hit the economy would take if such a measure could be implemented (not that it ever would of course).

Plus, and tell me if I'm wrong here, I find it hard to believe that whatever state/regime that would be prepared to send nukes out would nuke Britain and Britain exclusively. Chances are they'll be nuking America/France/Israel(let's be honest here) and so on at the same time so really, the decision to fire trident would be 90% out of our hands (I don't even think we can fire it independently at all and we need the all clear from Washington in the first place).

re Corbyn and his nuclear weapons stance> Now everyone should know I'm not his biggest fan when it comes to his woeful role as Opposition leader and Brexit role, but let's get real. Any country who uses a nuclear weapon FIRST - which is what we're talking about here - is committing suicide, quite apart from the evil immorality of murdering millions of people who DIDNT actually want to start a nuclear war.

 

1986. Fallout from Chernobyl, merely a nuclear power station, spread over the UK by windpower - nobody mentions it these days, but mild radiation was absorbed by grass, which was eaten by sheep and found its way into the food chain. It was a case of shhh don't mention it cos any cancers down the line are years in the future (ie now) and who cares about the future. A nuclear blast on a city would be hundreds of times worst and any moron who believes that there is ANY defense scenario short of shooting off a nuclear blast after one has been fired at the UK (just to make sure the "enemy" suffers just as much devastation), is deluded. BTW did you know that OUR American-made weapons and related IT, for which we pay way over the odds compared to the USA military, cannot be fired without going through American systems (which they can cut off if they feel like it). So - not a deterrent so much as subsidised American weaponry which can be used only at USA leisure.

 

Money Tree: yet the Tories seem to find one for Brexit costs, corporation tax reductions, rich tax gifts etc etc and none of it costed in a manfesto. In fact, the Chancellor Of The Exchequer (anybody remember him?) is utterly absent from the campaign so Mrs Maybe doesn't get caught out by unpleasant facts. Fact.

 

The real woeful performance was Saint Theresa, she is utterly incapable of relating to human beings because she is an emotional robot. Every cut to the NHS (there are plans going on to sell off NHS assets to developers at the cut-rate 2 fer 1 deal by Tories) is apparently too expensive to help save lives - but the rich who are 55billion pounds better off since the banking crisis need much more tax relief and support. May is a callous old woman who lies and lies and lies. Whatever Corbyn is, he is not a liar, he is consistent and has been throughout his political career. May has not.

 

These are all facts. Not fake news. Easily researched from reputable sources.

Amazing the papers and Murdoch have us talking about a non-issue, except from the cost, when we should be focusing on society and what's really important.

Agreed, but their forecasts are over estimated and I don't like how they go after the middle-class (as always - the same goes for the Tories too). I think the reasons why the Tories have not announced where their money is coming from is likely to be due to pissing a lot of their core voters off! Clearly they thought they could get away with it due to the mess of the Labour Leadership.

 

How do labour go after the middle classes?? They will only start taxing people on over 85-90k a year, that's not middle class, it's people living in comfort!!

Absolutely - their plans are to go after the richest and rebalance wealth, not attack the middle class. Don;t listen to the S*n.

No *country* perhaps, but that doesn't stop ISIS from plotting against us, and given Corbyn's record of sucking up to terrorists, I do *NOT* want him as PM!

 

Will trident stop ISIS???

 

Doubtful!

 

And again let's put this sucking up to terrorists nonsense to bed, he speaks to all people involved in conflicts to try and create a peaceful resolution which is exactly what has to happen in any given conflict e.g. In NI the conflict didn't end until all players in the conflict were at the table! It's really annoys me as an Irishman the nonsense talked in the British media about Ireland and saying the IRA are the only group at fault during the troubles - it's so biased and shows a lack of understanding about the conflict here or just simply ignoring the role of the British government/army in the conflict!

They will keep flogging that biased nonsense tbh - it is literally what they use as a retort on their doorstop canvassing! It's incredible.

How do labour go after the middle classes?? They will only start taxing people on over 85-90k a year, that's not middle class, it's people living in comfort!!

 

People who earn 80-100k are middle class. I know plenty of people who earn that amount of money and they are as middle class as you can come. You don't rebalance wealth by taxing those people, just like raising stamp duty on second properties is not going to stop the housing market inflation. All these people work hard for their money, none of them had anything handed anything to them. They ones Labour (and other parties )should be going after are earners over 150k.

Again, they are not taxed MORE persay.

 

They are taxed at the same rate as everybody else for their first 20k, then the same rate for 50k, then at 80k they start getting taxed, what, 5p more per pound?

 

And no, 80k IS very much top earners.

 

 

Again, they are not taxed MORE persay.

 

They are taxed at the same rate as everybody else for their first 20k, then the same rate for 50k, then at 80k they start getting taxed, what, 5p more per pound?

 

And no, 80k IS very much top earners.

 

I think it's in the top 5%, but I still don't believe it's right. Fair enough I believe the tax system should be fairer, but it is the £150k + people any potential government needs to be going after.

People who earn 80-100k are middle class. I know plenty of people who earn that amount of money and they are as middle class as you can come. You don't rebalance wealth by taxing those people, just like raising stamp duty on second properties is not going to stop the housing market inflation. All these people work hard for their money, none of them had anything handed anything to them. They ones Labour (and other parties )should be going after are earners over 150k.

 

No one ever thinks they are not middle class no matter what they earn. Middle class money wise for me is anyone on between 25-40k imo. Anyone on 90 grand a year is well above middle class levels though they'll never admit that.

 

And the point that 'all these people work hard for their money' is a very grey point as well as wealth accumulates in capitalist societies so that the bulk is kept in families that are previously wealthy - I know so many mates who are were they are because of the fortune of having rich parents.