|
Post by salopstick on May 16, 2017 10:40:26 GMT
Apart from the cost it's a great manifesto. Some decent ideas there from the snippets I've seen on news.
Saying that my kids make great Christmas lists until I explain Santa only has so much money
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 16, 2017 10:40:53 GMT
I think that Corbyn is making an excellent speech on the launch of the manifesto.....whether it is economically deliverably, I have not a clue........it is a pity that he is/ seems uncommitted to Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 10:54:58 GMT
Scotland will get it's own National Bank and 20 Billion quid for "creating work and stimulating the economy" and there'll be an inquiry into police actions during the miners strike.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on May 16, 2017 11:14:03 GMT
Apart from the cost it's a great manifesto. Some decent ideas there from the snippets I've seen on news. Saying that my kids make great Christmas lists until I explain Santa only has so much money Bet they loved the tumble drier last Xmas
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 16, 2017 11:22:43 GMT
There already seems to be doubts about the veracity of some of the costings One source is private eye, I shit you not
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 11:25:00 GMT
Laura Kuenssberg gets booed by activists as she tries to ask a question.
Reporter from the Morning Star asks can anything be done about the "shockingly biased media" - huge applause.
The Daily Mirror's political editor Jack Blanchard gets booed for pointing out that the polls don't endorse Jeremy as Leader of the Party.
It's like a student union meeting.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 11:31:19 GMT
There already seems to be doubts about the veracity of some of the costings One source is private eye, I shit you not It's fully costed !! It's fully costed because we've been told it's fully costed. Don't come around here with your facts and figures. EDIT: Is that true about Private Eye Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 11:43:48 GMT
There already seems to be doubts about the veracity of some of the costings One source is private eye, I shit you not It's fully costed !! It's fully costed because we've been told it's fully costed. Don't come around here with your facts and figures. EDIT: Is that true about Private Eye View AttachmentIt's only true that Chicken May is knocking on a door if Tory H.Q. has picked the householder first! Don't want another Abingdon moment now do we?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 16, 2017 11:45:26 GMT
There already seems to be doubts about the veracity of some of the costings One source is private eye, I shit you not It's fully costed !! It's fully costed because we've been told it's fully costed. Don't come around here with your facts and figures. EDIT: Is that true about Private Eye Apparently so I think this nails it and if you look on his timeline you see where he lists other sources (some imaginative ways to say guesses or made up)
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 12:00:07 GMT
It's fully costed !! It's fully costed because we've been told it's fully costed. Don't come around here with your facts and figures. EDIT: Is that true about Private Eye Apparently so I think this nails it and if you look on his timeline you see where he lists other sources (some imaginative ways to say guesses or made up) The author P.Sikka specialises in tax avoidance and one of his papers:. "The study draws upon a range of secondary sources, including legal cases and government reports, to demonstrate how “tax planning” involves “wilful blindness” to complicity in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activity." Fraudulence and complicity? just the mention of these words conjures up images of Osborne, Cameron and all those other Tories with assets abroad!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 12:42:06 GMT
It's fully costed !! It's fully costed because we've been told it's fully costed. Don't come around here with your facts and figures. EDIT: Is that true about Private Eye It's only true that Chicken May is knocking on a door if Tory H.Q. has picked the householder first! Don't want another Abingdon moment now do we? So let me get this shit sorted out once and for all. You come out with this 'Chicken' May cobblers because you say she's not meeting real people. When she does go out and about and engages with real people suddenly it's a "moment". What really happened was a vulnerable member of the community, who was known to Nicola Blackwood (prospective local Con MP) asked Mrs May for help. Nicola said she could help the lady locally, along with Debbie, Cathy's ex-carer. Mrs May promised to help many on a National scale. The lady departs saying thank you. It's spin and edit and you and Momo et al swallow it hook, line and sinker. If that had been Corbyn meeting a vulnerable adult who he reassures that he will help and that person says thank you and walks off he'd be the new Messiah.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 12:48:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 12:50:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 16, 2017 12:55:10 GMT
[/quote]The author P.Sikka specialises in tax avoidance and one of his papers:. "The study draws upon a range of secondary sources, including legal cases and government reports, to demonstrate how “tax planning” involves “wilful blindness” to complicity in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activity." Fraudulence and complicity? just the mention of these words conjures up images of Osborne, Cameron and all those other Tories with assets abroad![/quote] Fraudulent you love a libel don't you Nicholas, please provide evidence of this fraud be either knowing your strict adherence to not lying this should be good..... Do you still not get it, it was from an article in Private Eye not a privately commissioned study or research someone had just googled it and quoted it as a source, one of the sources for another tax is a Fabian society report from 2011 More proof of the rank amateurish nature of Labour
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 16, 2017 12:57:01 GMT
Putting out further details in due course = we need to google some more.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 12:57:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 16, 2017 13:10:52 GMT
Looks like Dianne was looking after some of the costings
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 13:11:14 GMT
It's only true that Chicken May is knocking on a door if Tory H.Q. has picked the householder first! Don't want another Abingdon moment now do we? So let me get this shit sorted out once and for all. You come out with this 'Chicken' May cobblers because you say she's not meeting real people. When she does go out and about and engages with real people suddenly it's a "moment". What really happened was a vulnerable member of the community, who was known to Nicola Blackwood (prospective local Con MP) asked Mrs May for help. Nicola said she could help the lady locally, along with Debbie, Cathy's ex-carer. Mrs May promised to help many on a National scale. The lady departs saying thank you. It's spin and edit and you and Momo et al swallow it hook, line and sinker. If that had been Corbyn meeting a vulnerable adult who he reassures that he will help and that person says thank you and walks off he'd be the new Messiah. I've listened to the "moment" I think on the B.B.C.. Chicken May DID NOT promise help! She quoted back the Tory line that P.I.P. helps the most needy. As the complainant put it well P.I.P. does this by disqualifying thousands of deserving people! Many were on D.L.A. but either get less or nothing at all when transferred to P.I.P.! Frankly, as a disabled person, I found Chicken May's argument and answer DISGUSTING!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 13:14:06 GMT
Anyway, it's been fun but I've got shit to do. I'll leave you with this, is re-nationalising railways against EU law? No wonder Corbo's backing Brexit Do new EU rules make it impossible to renationalise railways? - Fact Check "The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise." - Jonathan Cowie, Lecturer in Transport Economics, Edinburgh Napier University. "I broadly agree with the author’s outline of the issue. But where the author states that the regulation does not require member states to privatise any aspect of their rail network, my reading of the fourth rail package is that it categorically seeks to dismantle incumbent state monopolies in other EU countries. This rules out reinstating mainland Britain’s old state monopoly, British Rail."- Nicole Badstuber, researcher in urban transport governance at the London School of Economics and UCL.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 13:15:11 GMT
The author P.Sikka specialises in tax avoidance and one of his papers:. "The study draws upon a range of secondary sources, including legal cases and government reports, to demonstrate how “tax planning” involves “wilful blindness” to complicity in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activity." Fraudulence and complicity? just the mention of these words conjures up images of Osborne, Cameron and all those other Tories with assets abroad![/quote] Fraudulent you love a libel don't you Nicholas, please provide evidence of this fraud be either knowing your strict adherence to not lying this should be good..... Do you still not get it, it was from an article in Private Eye not a privately commissioned study or research someone had just googled it and quoted it as a source, one of the sources for another tax is a Fabian society report from 2011 More proof of the rank amateurish nature of Labour [/quote] Be nice to know more about Cameron's Caribbean holdings! Though you claim to be an expert on Labour's tax and spend let's see if you're an expert on Tory Spend in Harrods and pay NO TAX!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 13:17:55 GMT
Anyway, it's been fun but I've got shit to do. I'll leave you with this, is re-nationalising railways against EU law? No wonder Corbo's backing Brexit Do new EU rules make it impossible to renationalise railways? - Fact Check "The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise." - Jonathan Cowie, Lecturer in Transport Economics, Edinburgh Napier University. "I broadly agree with the author’s outline of the issue. But where the author states that the regulation does not require member states to privatise any aspect of their rail network, my reading of the fourth rail package is that it categorically seeks to dismantle incumbent state monopolies in other EU countries. This rules out reinstating mainland Britain’s old state monopoly, British Rail."- Nicole Badstuber, researcher in urban transport governance at the London School of Economics and UCL. You Tories wanted Brexit but it hasn't taken long for you lot to start moaning!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 13:23:36 GMT
Anyway, it's been fun but I've got shit to do. I'll leave you with this, is re-nationalising railways against EU law? No wonder Corbo's backing Brexit Do new EU rules make it impossible to renationalise railways? - Fact Check "The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise." - Jonathan Cowie, Lecturer in Transport Economics, Edinburgh Napier University. "I broadly agree with the author’s outline of the issue. But where the author states that the regulation does not require member states to privatise any aspect of their rail network, my reading of the fourth rail package is that it categorically seeks to dismantle incumbent state monopolies in other EU countries. This rules out reinstating mainland Britain’s old state monopoly, British Rail."- Nicole Badstuber, researcher in urban transport governance at the London School of Economics and UCL. You Tories wanted Brexit but it hasn't taken long for you lot to start moaning! Ahh, I forgot no Labour voters vote to Leave. Righto. Just a Tory plan. Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 13:35:37 GMT
You Tories wanted Brexit but it hasn't taken long for you lot to start moaning! Ahh, I forgot no Labour voters vote to Leave. Righto. Just a Tory plan. Gotcha. How many of those voters piloted the Referendum Bill through the HoC? NONE!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 13:46:10 GMT
Regarding Chicken May's "moment" in Abingdon, here are the government's own estimates:
"By the end of the period (October 2018 as currently planned), the Government estimates that 1.75 million DLA reassessments will have been processsed. 510,000 recipients are expected to get a higher award under PIP compared to their DLA claim. 270,000 will see no monetary difference. 510,000 will have a reduced payment and 450,000 will have their payments removed altogether."
So, the 510,000 are receiving more at the expense of 510,000+450,000=960,000! Yes, the Tories introducing more income inequality for the disabled just as they have for everyone else in society! And the Tory Boys on here think they're the saviours of the working man?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 13:54:34 GMT
Ahh, I forgot no Labour voters vote to Leave. Righto. Just a Tory plan. Gotcha. How many of those voters piloted the Referendum Bill through the HoC? NONE! Don't worry Cockers we'll bring a Strong and Stable Brexit for everyone As the great Lady herself said; So that is what we will do. Not merely forming a new partnership with Europe, but building a stronger, fairer, more Global Britain too. And let that be the legacy of our time. The prize towards which we work. The destination at which we arrive once the negotiation is done. And let us do it not for ourselves, but for those who follow. For the country’s children and grandchildren too. So that when future generations look back at this time, they will judge us not only by the decision that we made, but by what we made of that decision. They will see that we shaped them a brighter future. They will know that we built them a better Britain.
Brings a tear to eye.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 14:05:01 GMT
The party of the 'bedroom tax', P.I.P., benefit sanctions, record homelessness, record child poverty creating a 'fairer, more Global Britain". Are you fucking serious? You must be delusional if you believe that crap! And by the way, Stoke were well organised, spirited, committed and deserved to win on Saturday! You should see the same 'psyche' as Sparky!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 16, 2017 14:06:32 GMT
Regarding Chicken May's "moment" in Abingdon, here are the government's own estimates: "By the end of the period (October 2018 as currently planned), the Government estimates that 1.75 million DLA reassessments will have been processsed. 510,000 recipients are expected to get a higher award under PIP compared to their DLA claim. 270,000 will see no monetary difference. 510,000 will have a reduced payment and 450,000 will have their payments removed altogether." So, the 510,000 are receiving more at the expense of 510,000+450,000=960,000! Yes, the Tories introducing more income inequality for the disabled just as they have for everyone else in society! And the Tory Boys on here think they're the saviours of the working man? So 450,000 will have it removed all together, 510,000 receive more money. Isn't this just redistributing the pot more fairly?
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 14:15:10 GMT
Regarding Chicken May's "moment" in Abingdon, here are the government's own estimates: "By the end of the period (October 2018 as currently planned), the Government estimates that 1.75 million DLA reassessments will have been processsed. 510,000 recipients are expected to get a higher award under PIP compared to their DLA claim. 270,000 will see no monetary difference. 510,000 will have a reduced payment and 450,000 will have their payments removed altogether." So, the 510,000 are receiving more at the expense of 510,000+450,000=960,000! Yes, the Tories introducing more income inequality for the disabled just as they have for everyone else in society! And the Tory Boys on here think they're the saviours of the working man? So 450,000 will have it removed all together, 510,000 receive more money. Isn't this just redistributing the pot more fairly? No, because overall the disabled bill will fall. As everyone knows when government attempts to pick winners it introduces more unfairness not less. The criteria favour physical disability over mental disability. Nobody has ever explained why a very small proportion of the disabled should be unilaterally favoured over other groups of disabled people. Tories only think it is fairer because they like targeting even though this targeting is grossly unfair and attempts to create a winners and losers outcome which they seem to love?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 16, 2017 14:15:51 GMT
The author P.Sikka specialises in tax avoidance and one of his papers:. "The study draws upon a range of secondary sources, including legal cases and government reports, to demonstrate how “tax planning” involves “wilful blindness” to complicity in dubious and sometimes fraudulent activity." Fraudulence and complicity? just the mention of these words conjures up images of Osborne, Cameron and all those other Tories with assets abroad! Fraudulent you love a libel don't you Nicholas, please provide evidence of this fraud be either knowing your strict adherence to not lying this should be good..... Do you still not get it, it was from an article in Private Eye not a privately commissioned study or research someone had just googled it and quoted it as a source, one of the sources for another tax is a Fabian society report from 2011 More proof of the rank amateurish nature of Labour [/quote] Be nice to know more about Cameron's Caribbean holdings! Though you claim to be an expert on Labour's tax and spend let's see if you're an expert on Tory Spend in Harrods and pay NO TAX![/quote] It was his fathers fund go back to April 2016 it was discussed heavily on here and there is an analysis from a tax accountant basically stating it doesn't actually avoid any tax and is exactly the same as the pension funds that councils, newspapers like the Mirror and Guardian use. One particular council Islington was mentioned now who gets a pension from there. So it appears you have no evidence to support your fraud allegations as for Tory spend in Harrods I presume an autocorrect rendering the meaning of your point / question is lost otherwise I haven"t a clue what you're on about.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 16, 2017 14:21:11 GMT
Just to remind voters of the Tories commitment to a "fairer Britain"[their words not mine!]:
"David Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance, the Guardian can reveal.
Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction.
At the time of his death in late 2010, Ian Cameron left a fortune of £2.74m in his will, from which David Cameron received the sum of £300,000."
Nice little earner!
|
|