What's May up to? General election 08/06/2017

[I1L2T3 10]

The Tories are bonkers.

 

First they threaten conflict with Spain.

 

Now they are reclassifying our deterrent - Trident - as a first strike system.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-first-strike-war-green-party-fanatics-jeremy-corbyn-jonathan-bartley-a7700071.html

 

Corbyn is spot on with his assessment. It's a deterrent. Nothing more.

[Hairyloon 10]

The Tories are bonkers.

 

First they threaten conflict with Spain.

 

Now they are reclassifying our deterrent - Trident - as a first strike system.

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

Here are today's front pages. Feel free to point out any needless corbyn (or may or farron) bashing. I'll endeavour to do this everyday up to the election.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-39700501

[apelike 10]

The Tories are bonkers.

 

First they threaten conflict with Spain.

 

They have not threatened anything and its only Michael Howard, who is not part of the government, that stated this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gibraltar-michael-howard-got-to-war-with-spain-falklands-brexit-hilarious-never-going-to-happen-a7664536.html

 

Now they are reclassifying our deterrent - Trident - as a first strike system.

 

They are not reclassifying anything. Michael Fallon has only stated that there is a remote possibility that in extreme circumstances it could be used in a first strike situation.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html

 

Corbyn is spot on with his assessment. It's a deterrent. Nothing more.

 

Trident is a big problem for him. He is leader and wants to be rid but has a party that has voted to renew it, that itself is causing confusion. But it is possible that it could be used for a first strike.

Edited April 25, 2017 by apelike
put in extra wrong link

[tinfoilhat 11]

Todays front pages are a bit of mixed bag - not too much politics considering. Plenty of Maddie McCann, trumps daughter and Kim Kardashians arse.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-39714115

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2017 at 12:36 ----------

 

Thursday 27/4/17 front pages now.

 

It's good that they're generating debate

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-39727377

[L00b 441]

Something I have never been able to understand is this continual carping about tax.

In an ideal world, there would be no income tax.

All expenses for the country would be drawn from business profits, but that can never be.

The ruling classes refuse to pay their fair share, so we workers must subsidise them by paying tax on the pittance they grudgingly pay for our labour.

 

However, an increase of say 1% on a taxable income of say £5000 a month is only about £50 a month, or about £11 per week.

Which really is nothing, if it keeps the country healthy, and the less fortunate from poverty.

I really cannot see the reason for the song and dance about such pettifogging amounts.

I was prompted to revisit this thread after getting up to speed on the 'triple lock' thread and, talking of pettifogging amounts, I through useful to relate that, with my wife as a 'homemaker', I'm paying £7k a year of income tax & NI more, than if my salary was split halfway between us (i.e. for any couple each earning half of my wage, currently they get to keep £7k more a year after tax, than we do). [i just checked this math through HMRC's online calculator, to be sure].

 

So, when the government eventually consents to assessing income tax on a household basis, rather than on an individual basis, I'll consent to your percentage point tax increase (or pension tax credit or some other measure you have mentioned) without any fuss.

 

In the meantime, as your percentage point would increase that £7k still further, I trust you can appreciate why the idea doesn't exactly appeal, and why I consider your back-of-fag-packet pettyfogging amount example a grossly misleading oversimplification.

 

By reference to the 'triple lock' thread, I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about changing that situation through (re-)unionising, either.

Edited April 27, 2017 by L00b

[Jacktari 10]

I was prompted to revisit this thread after getting up to speed on the 'triple lock' thread and, talking of pettifogging amounts, I through useful to relate that, with my wife as a 'homemaker', I'm paying £7k a year of income tax & NI more, than if my salary was split halfway between us (i.e. for any couple each earning half of my wage, currently they get to keep £7k more a year after tax, than we do). [i just checked this math through HMRC's online calculator, to be sure].

 

So, when the government eventually consents to assessing income tax on a household basis, rather than on an individual basis, I'll consent to your percentage point tax increase (or pension tax credit or some other measure you have mentioned) without any fuss.

 

In the meantime, as your percentage point would increase that £7k still further, I trust you can appreciate why the idea doesn't exactly appeal, and why I consider your back-of-fag-packet pettyfogging amount example a grossly misleading oversimplification.

 

By reference to the 'triple lock' thread, I'm not exactly sure how you'd go about changing that situation through (re-)unionising, either.

 

I have just picked up on this, and was not ignoring it.

The only point I am trying to make, across all the threads, is that paying a little more tax, if it leads to a settled, happy, and equitable country, (and indeed world), is well worth doing.

I realise this can never happen, with the state of humanity at present.

 

I am becoming idealistic in my old age, and overlooking greed, ambition, and selfishness.

While ever we have people with this strange obsession to have more than their fellow man, we will never achieve our full potential as a species.

[Norseman 10]

Corbyn to Resign 9th June?

 

No, he should be forced to stay in that position for at least 20 years or until the party idiots who put him in as leader realise too late what total chumps they are and they've wrecked the party.

 

Who in their right mind would vote for him....he changes his mind more about policies daily .... even people I know who've voted Labour for generations aren't going near him this time......lets see what happens on the election day

[Jacktari 10]

No, he should be forced to stay in that position for at least 20 years or until the party idiots who put him in as leader realise too late what total chumps they are and they've wrecked the party.

 

Who in their right mind would vote for him....he changes his mind more about policies daily .... even people I know who've voted Labour for generations aren't going near him this time......lets see what happens on the election day

 

As we are moving onwards, I think more and more people are realising what a foaming at the mouth maniac Theresa May is.

Our deranged Foreign Secretary makes a bigger fool of himself hourly.

I may have to turn my allegiance back to Corbyn, at least he is not running around like a headless chicken.

 

I think if the Liberals had a better leader, they would make a good showing.

[tinfoilhat 11]

She's just come from clay cross and now heading to a rally in a hardcore labour safe seat in Leeds. You can't accuse her of picking easy battles. When is jezza going to Richmond on Thames or Harrogate?

[Jacktari 10]

She's just come from clay cross and now heading to a rally in a hardcore labour safe seat in Leeds. You can't accuse her of picking easy battles. When is jezza going to Richmond on Thames or Harrogate?

 

Do you think it is worth his while bothering?

To be honest I cannot see any point in this farce at all.

The country is going to hell, what difference does it make who is steering the handcart?

I will be out of the equation, but I wonder where you will all be in twenty years time.

I am only glad I will not be here to see the humiliation of my country.

[JNewton69 10]

Strong and Stable my arse. Arthritic stick insect more like!