Election 2019 - Week 3

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yesterday’s show was far better moderated by Fiona Bruce than ITV’s shambles. Each politician managed to get their points across.

Best performer was Sturgeon. Polished and logical.

Next best as a performer was Corbyn. He spouts Commie rubbish but does it well.

Second worst was Boris. Didn’t convince anyone.

Jo Swinson was useless.

I would not have described it thus.

I think all the politicians performed extremely well, although I warmed only to one of them. However, the audience gave Corbyn and Swinson a particulary hard time. Sturgeon had an easier ride. Johnson kind of won the audience over a bit and lightened up the proceedings. The audience ultimately warmed to him and hostilities were mitigated.

One thing that was clear was that the audience considered Corbyn a clear and present danger in terms of our well being, and that reassures me that Boris is likely to romp home.

Corbyn's sinister invitation to step outside for a conversation to a member of the audience on his serious concerns about a Corbyn government told me all I needed to know!

I think it is pretty clear that whatever political view anyone has on these forums, Marxist Communism does not really tick any boxes.

Back on topic, please - the election, not the Brexit campaign

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Off topic post removed

As per Hugh posts above mine, posts have been removed. Infractions have been issued.

I posted a directive earlier not to discuss old arguments about the Brexit Referendum vote, I log in hours later to discover this was ignored - Unacceptable.

When team members posts instructions, they are not asking you, they are telling you and you must obey, failure to do so, could result in posting privileges being revoked.

[OLD BOY]

What amazes me is that there are not more posts on how the leaders performed in the Question Time Leaders’ debates. Is this because our left wing friends are embarrassed about what Corbyn has exposed to the world?

No wonder they are trying so hard to discredit Boris! He’s the only one who spoke any sense!

[nomadking]

Just when you thought Labour are getting free and easy with other people's money. They were just getting warmed up.

Link

Labour has promised compensation to almost four million women who lost out because of changes to the state pension age, if it wins the general election.
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the £58bn pledge would settle a "debt of honour" to women born in the 1950s.
...
Labour said it would make individual payments of an average of £15,380 to the 3.7 million women it claims were affected - with some payouts as high as £31,300.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What amazes me is that there are not more posts on how the leaders performed in the Question Time Leaders’ debates. Is this because our left wing friends are embarrassed about what Corbyn has exposed to the world?

No wonder they are trying so hard to discredit Boris! He’s the only one who spoke any sense!

Maybe its because you're living in a bubble old chap? There aren't more posts because Boris didn't do very well. No wonder he's refused to do the C4 one, the less is is exposed for his lies the better it seems.

---------- Post added at 07:51 ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Just when you thought Labour are getting free and easy with other people's money. They were just getting warmed up.

Link

If only women didn't have a vote

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe its because you're living in a bubble old chap? There aren't more posts because Boris didn't do very well. No wonder he's refused to do the C4 one, the less is is exposed for his lies the better it seems.

---------- Post added at 07:51 ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 ----------



If only women didn't have a vote

If only there was equality and men would be compensated for having to have worked for an extra 5 years, or simply for the extra 1 or 2 years.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Just when you thought Labour are getting free and easy with other people's money. They were just getting warmed up.

Link

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...e955fb2ea22509

(Shareable link from the Sunday Times, so hopefully will be readable to non subscribers)

Boris Johnson today pledges in the Tory manifesto that his government will not raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT, setting up a dramatic economic showdown with Labour over tax and spending.

In a blueprint for a post-Brexit Britain, the Tory manifesto outlines measures to tackle the cost of living, including £1bn for extra childcare and a pledge to maintain the triple lock on pensions as well as free bus passes for the elderly.

The 60-page manifesto, entitled Get Brexit Done, Unleash Britain’s Potential, will be launched today in Telford, a marginal seat the Tories won by just 720 votes in 2017. It will pump new money into the NHS, police and schools.

Specific pledges include:
● A £10bn plan to raise the national insurance contributions threshold for working people, saving 31m taxpayers £100 next year
● A new £1bn fund for flexible wraparound childcare to increase the availability of after-school and holiday clubs to benefit an extra 250,000 primary school pupils
● Keeping the pensions triple lock, winter fuel payment and the older person’s bus pass — in a bid to secure the grey vote
● Scrapping hospital car parking charges for NHS staff on night shifts, as well as disabled and terminally ill patients and their families and those who require regular visits to hospital
● £2bn for the biggest ever pothole-filling programme
● Keeping the existing energy price cap and spending £6.3bn on efficiency measures to cut fuel bills in 2.2m homes targeting social housing and fuel-poor families
● £3bn for a new National Skills Fund and a pledge that a Tory government would eventually introduce a “right to retrain”.

Plans to cut inheritance tax are understood to have been junked because they would seem too beneficial to the better off and Tory sources were divided about whether plans to remove stamp duty on properties under £500,000 had made the cut.

Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

If only there was equality and men would be compensated for having to have worked for an extra 5 years, or simply for the extra 1 or 2 years.

If only women didn’t have to take time off work to continue the human race...

(I actually agree with the equalisation of pension ages, just not how it was done)

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If only there was equality and men would be compensated for having to have worked for an extra 5 years, or simply for the extra 1 or 2 years.

Yes equality all round is a good thing. Equal opportunities for rich/poor, closing of the North/South and young/old divides, Glad you're coming on board; always had you down as a closet socialist, you don't fool me

---------- Post added at 09:31 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...e955fb2ea22509

(Shareable link from the Sunday Times, so hopefully will be readable to non subscribers)



Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...


---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

If only women didn’t have to rake time off work to continue the human race...

(I actually agree with the equalisation of pension ages, just not how it was done)

Pot holes, a key Tory priority ! There were less pot holes under Labour....

[jfman]

I don't think anyone really agrees (Old Boy will no doubt surprise us here) with how the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition changed the rules in 2011 giving just three years notice to some of those affected.

Considering the original increase had a fifteen year lead-in period it isn't really adequate time for some of those preparing. That said, it isn't just women who are affected here men who prepared to retire at 65 in this decade found the increase from 65 to 66. While not being hit the same way as women these short notice changes are costing men thousands.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...

Its that convenient magic money tree making a guest reappearance again...

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by denphone

Its that convenient magic money tree making a guest reappearance again...

Looks very much like it unless you've got a long term non terminal illness that requires frequent hospital visits - then you're fair game to be squeezed for every penny they can get out of you. I reckon this 'oversight' could be Borris' dementia tax moment.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...e955fb2ea22509

(Shareable link from the Sunday Times, so hopefully will be readable to non subscribers)



Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

If only women didn’t have to rake time off work to continue the human race...

(I actually agree with the equalisation of pension ages, just not how it was done)

What has women having babies got to do with it? If anything as I understand it, they now have (1 or 2) extra years to fill in any gaps.


You either equalize them or you don't. You can't exactly say you're going to equalize them in 50 years time. They would still complain they didn't have enough notice.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I don't think anyone really agrees (Old Boy will no doubt surprise us here) with how the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition changed the rules in 2011 giving just three years notice to some of those affected.

Considering the original increase had a fifteen year lead-in period it isn't really adequate time for some of those preparing. That said, it isn't just women who are affected here men who prepared to retire at 65 in this decade found the increase from 65 to 66. While not being hit the same way as women these short notice changes are costing men thousands.

Men got exactly the same notice of the extra changes as women did.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What has women having babies got to do with it? If anything as I understand it, they now have (1 or 2) extra years to fill in any gaps.


You either equalize them or you don't. You can't exactly say you're going to equalize them in 50 years time. They would still complain they didn't have enough notice.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------


Men got exactly the same notice of the extra changes as women did.

I said some men are affected, but the leap isn’t the same or compounding the original state pension age increases announced in 1995.

I don’t think any reasonable person would accept your notion “you either equalise them or you don’t” without any lead in period. We ask people to make responsible financial plans for their retirement - the Government shouldn’t pull the rug from under these to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds at two or three years notice given a 40 odd year working career.

It also creates an anomaly where those who are responsible and retire early get penalised for the period and those on benefits continue to trouser taxpayers money in the interim with minimal effect.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I said some men are affected, but the leap isn’t the same or compounding the original state pension age increases announced in 1995.

I don’t think any reasonable person would accept your notion “you either equalise them or you don’t” without any lead in period. We ask people to make responsible financial plans for their retirement - the Government shouldn’t pull the rug from under these to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds at two or three years notice given a 40 odd year working career.

They've had over 20 years notice of the equalization. How much more of a lead in period do they want? With the scrapping of retirement at 60/65, they have extra years to earn money for whatever they class as "responsible financial plans".