General Election, June 8th

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

Just now, Strokes said:

Yeah I do, as I said I think they will benefit from it themselves, even if it's indirect. 

So like under Blair when it was great getting loads and loads of school leavers to go on Degrees in Social Studies and David Beckham?

 

No, what we need is a balance approach.  Those with the higher intellect will understand its their choice and they can considerably increase their chances of better career prospects by going to university.  I believe a further education policy which does cost something very much more concentrates the mind for the individual.  They must want to go, they must want to get a return of their time at uni.  To expect so many to get a free hit and many many more getting nothing by simply working straight away (and paying taxes earlier) is not fair.  A balanced solution is needed.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

So like under Blair when it was great getting loads and loads of school leavers to go on Degrees in Social Studies and David Beckham?

 

No, what we need is a balance approach.  Those with the higher intellect will understand its their choice and they can considerably increase their chances of better career prospects by going to university.  I believe a further education policy which does cost something very much more concentrates the mind for the individual.  They must want to go, they must want to get a return of their time at uni.  To expect so many to get a free hit and many many more getting nothing by simply working straight away (and paying taxes earlier) is not fair.  A balanced solution is needed.

I did not say that, I said the policy holds merit. I believe in the ideology of it. It doesn't mean I've agreed that previous application of it are correct. Lots of things regarding taxation aren't always fair. Is it fair that I have to pay more tax to subsidise the disabled, when I am able?  We do somethings to benifit society as whole and this is one of them I think we should.

[LiberalFox]

As a Liberal I'm not sure what my views are on the NMW. In a Liberal Utopia there would be no such thing as a minimum wage because people would be free to negotiate what they were willing to work for and there would be enough genuine choice and equality of power that exploitation wouldn't occur. As usual, people make simplistic arguments and those on the right are against a rise in NMW and those on the left are in favour of it. Personally I think for Corbyn/McDonnells vision of Britain to succeed then the rise in NMW is necessary. It's a socialist policy for a socialist manifesto. 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

As a Liberal I'm not sure what my views are on the NMW. In a Liberal Utopia there would be no such thing as a minimum wage because people would be free to negotiate what they were willing to work for and there would be enough genuine choice and equality of power that exploitation wouldn't occur. As usual, people make simplistic arguments and those on the right are against a rise in NMW and those on the left are in favour of it. Personally I think for Corbyn/McDonnells vision of Britain to succeed then the rise in NMW is necessary. It's a socialist policy for a socialist manifesto. 

I'm not against a rise, I'm just saying it won't make anyone better off. Well maybe for a few weeks. Those currently on the same as the minimum wage will want an increase, because supervisors get paid more for extra responsibility. So they will be getting a current semi skilled wage. The semi skilled workers, well they will need their rates adjusting or they might as well just go work in the warehouse, so they get a raise to a skilled wage. The skilled workers then need a payrise and then the managers and the chain continues all the way up until the natural order is restored. 

Its a total fantasy that this will achieve anything significant, it will just put more people on minimum wage than anything else.

[LiberalFox]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I'm not against a rise, I'm just saying it won't make anyone better off. Well maybe for a few weeks. Those currently on the same as the minimum wage will want an increase, because supervisors get paid more for extra responsibility. So they will be getting a current semi skilled wage. The semi skilled workers, well they will need their rates adjusting or they might as well just go work in the warehouse, so they get a raise to a skilled wage. The skilled workers then need a payrise and then the managers and the chain continues all the way up until the natural order is restored. 

Its a total fantasy that this will achieve anything significant, it will just put more people on minimum wage than anything else.

I kind of agree, it won't make everyone magically better off. On the other hand it won't cause armageddon either. We need higher inflation to stop the triple lock being an issue and it's a handy way to move people into higher income tax brackets while making them feel like they are getting paid more. It doesn't solve anything on its own.

[Captain...]

I still don't get this hard on for nuclear bombs, we have enough firepower with out the nukes to take on any rogue state without the devastating nuclear fall out (go to Hiroshima and read about the consequences of those bombs, see the pictures and the stories of unborn babies being contaminated with radiation sickness in utero).

 

On the other side of it we would be flattened if we tried to take on the US or Russia regardless of Nukes.

 

We are out of range of China, India and Pakistan.

 

So Nukes become irrelevant unless we start a war with France or Israel. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

But I ask again, those that don't go into higher education get nothing....they just have to work in whatever job they find/choose and they will indirectly be paying towards the extra tax burden all free higher education costs. They should pay for this yes?

Yes. It's called society. Graduates earn on average av little more but only on average. Many don't earn more than non-graduates. As a graduate myself who had a student loan of around £16k - built up before tuition fees got crazy and still being paid off 15 years later - i earn less than almost all my non-graduate friends. I also spent my time at university building up debt whilst they spent their time at work earning and getting a head start in the workplace. 

 

You pay for the nhs and schools and might not need them. You also pay for trident and (should) hope it isn't ever needed. But yet you don't think society should pay for teachers, doctors, nurses and weapon designers to be trained. Instead they should be punished with an additional lifelong tax even though society cannot function without them. 

 

Society needs skills and employees of all types and levels. We want our kids in the academic world until they reach their personal end point and are unleashed into employment. We actively encourage kids to stay at school and move into higher education if they show the acumen to do so. We need them to do this if we are going to forge a strong economy.

 

We need to get rid of tuition fees and to work with universities, HE colleges and industry to design courses that give graduates the skills that are needed in the areas that are needed. 

[Guest]

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/870696629631819778?s=09

[katieakita]

7 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

As a Liberal I'm not sure what my views are on the NMW. In a Liberal Utopia there would be no such thing as a minimum wage because people would be free to negotiate what they were willing to work for and there would be enough genuine choice and equality of power that exploitation wouldn't occur. As usual, people make simplistic arguments and those on the right are against a rise in NMW and those on the left are in favour of it. Personally I think for Corbyn/McDonnells vision of Britain to succeed then the rise in NMW is necessary. It's a socialist policy for a socialist manifesto. 

Still waiting for a response about the Lib/Dems handling of the Post Office and selling off of Royal Mail but I suppose ignoring the question and hoping it goes away is pretty much Lib/Dem policy. When it was pointed out to the useless Jo Swinson about tackling firms not paying the NMW that the government owned Post Office were a major culprit she declined to deal with it. She also did not have a problem allowing them to change contracts to avoid paying NI contributions thus taking from the treasury but an increase in the NMW benefits everyone and those employers struggling to pay it receiving support has to be a positive.

[Guest]

May's approval rating now around the same as corbyn's https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/870613394596012032?s=09

[Guest]

[breadandcheese]

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

I'm not against a rise, I'm just saying it won't make anyone better off. Well maybe for a few weeks. Those currently on the same as the minimum wage will want an increase, because supervisors get paid more for extra responsibility. So they will be getting a current semi skilled wage. The semi skilled workers, well they will need their rates adjusting or they might as well just go work in the warehouse, so they get a raise to a skilled wage. The skilled workers then need a payrise and then the managers and the chain continues all the way up until the natural order is restored. 

Its a total fantasy that this will achieve anything significant, it will just put more people on minimum wage than anything else.

Surely if Corbyn is raising the costs on business, profits will fall, reducing the amount of tax he can collect to pay for his spending splurge, even at 26% corporation tax.

 

Edit: Before anyone accuses me of not wanting wage increases, I'm not saying they shouldn't increase but Corbyn's talking about a big jump. This jump doesn't seem to join up with trying to tax business more. It shows what he's trying to achieve is pie in the sky costings

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Maybe you should check the Corporation Tax when Maggie arrived and left office.

[theessexfox]

21 minutes ago, toddybad said:

52% when she came to power. 34% when she left power.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

52% when she came to power. 34% when she left power.

Yep, 8% higher than corbyn proposes.

[Nick]

14 hours ago, MattP said:

The Guardian won't even be around in a few years, it's circulation is dying and they are now begging for money online.

 

Awkward for the Mirror as well, they called for to go but will have to endorse him.

 

It's a strange election, Corbyn might poll the highest of any Labour leader since Blair, yet the Guardian and Mirror called for him to go, the Staggers called him a joke, most prominent left-wing journalists disowned him and 80% of his own party told the nation he isn't fit to lead a political movement. I'll upset @Swan Lesta again but the comparisons to Trump are obvious.

 

No one has said it, but this is left wing populism in action.

Ha more utter horseshit !

 

Tory policy has greater similarities to Trump you're a fan of both so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

Painting the Gaurdian as begging ? they all do it. The Gaurdian just tries a different approach. Wiki does it too - will they be around in a few years?

 

Nice soundbyte around left wing populism but that's not populism - in fact it's arguably quite a way from it! (That's why no one has said it)

 

Keep trying though - but don't ever call others out again on quality of debate if this is the standard you are setting. 

[Nick]

9 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

That's Coventry and Derby University screwed then

Do you know much about Coventry Uni over the past 8 years? Check them out they are actually tearing up trees - seriously. They are winning just about every award going and take a look at the rankings too.... you'll be very surprised.

[Webbo]

Surely pretending that you can spend billions more on everything and only the undeserving rich will pay is the definition of populism?

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Surely pretending that you can spend billions more on everything and only the undeserving rich will pay is the definition of populism?

 

Pretending 

 

billions

 

undeserving rich

 

You should write for the Mail Tuffers!

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Surely pretending that you can spend billions more on everything and only the undeserving rich will pay is the definition of populism?

Pretending that continuously reducing the tax burden on the rich and business whilst our society and public bodies crumble is sensible politics. This is populism. 

 

"Pay no tax and the country will prosper". Bollocks.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

Pretending 

 

billions

 

undeserving rich

 

You should write for the Mail Tuffers!

We are talking billions, he is pretending only the rich will pay and he keeps saying the rich are getting richer as if getting rich was a crime.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Pretending that continuously reducing the tax burden on the rich and business whilst our society and public bodies crumble is sensible politics. This is populism. 

 

"Pay no tax and the country will prosper". Bollocks.

Who's saying pay no tax?

 

You're blaming ordinary people's problems on  a section of society and trying to stir up anger. You no different to Trump.

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Surely pretending that you can spend billions more on everything and only the undeserving rich will pay is the definition of populism?

Nah, it's only populist if it's from the right. 

 

Now get back to your Daily Mail, you Daily Mail reader. 

[Guest MattP]

I wish people would stop with the accusations of wanting a nuclear war, you do realise people want it as a deterrent? 

 

I've never a single person in my life who wants to annihilate millions of people.

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Nah, it's only populist if it's from the right. 

 

Now get back to your Daily Mail, you Daily Mail reader. 

 

Nope.

 

Populism can come from any political leaning. As an ideology it's about gathering together the voiceless and polarised people and helping them rise up against the corrupt elite (not rich people)...

 

But the second bit I agree with