AndyClaret wrote:With Labour tearing itself apart, the latest poll shows a 100 seat Tory majority.
And yet another poll which is much closer:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/statu ... 2299577350" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AndyClaret wrote:With Labour tearing itself apart, the latest poll shows a 100 seat Tory majority.
You’re going to have to explain how it transfers wealth from the poor to the rich to get Brexit Party attention.If it be your will wrote:Ah, you're looking at this from the wrong direction. The first link is a lefty explaining to other fellow lefties why he thinks it's not a good idea (I could easily counter his objections, by the way). But this is all irrelevant for you and the Brexit Party anyway, because you would be approaching it from the right (touched on in your second link, but badly explained by the Indy).
Briefly, the right wing argument for a UBI rests on liberty, and its twin brother 'personal responsibility'.
It goes like this (I'll exaggerate it for the point of the explanation): Fine, life can be harsh, and sometimes unfortunate, but the current benefits system, with all its means testing and medical assessments, has created a mass of humanity unable to look after itself or take responsibility for themselves. Most people receiving benefits spend their lives pretending they can't get a job when really they just can't be bothered. Or people claiming they're too ill when really it's laziness, or a dreadful diet, or drinking too much. And because they're all lying, useless good-for-nothings, we have to spend a fortune monitoring them, assessing them, cajoling them into actually doing something useful for once, rather than scrounging benefits all day.
Rather than this farce, let's pay everyone the minimum required to live. If they spend it all on drugs, fine, they have to sleep on the streets then. That would be their own stupid fault. Pretending you're too ill to work? Well stop clogging up the GP clinics with your make-believe illnesses - we're paying you a basic income anyway, there's nothing to be gained from pretending you're ill anymore. And now that we're paying enough for you to live on, no questions asked, we can get rid of all these dreadful, market-distorting labour laws like gender equality, minimum wage, holiday entitlements and all that nonsense that just gets abused by the lazy anyway! We don't need these rights if we are paying you a basic income - if you don't want to work, don't, but if you do take a job, don't whinge about the conditions all the time. It's not as if you'd starve, you'd still get a basic income whatever happens. And a whole swathe of public sector staff becomes obsolete, with vast savings to be made. And the economy would be much more dynamic without being strangled to death with labour laws. And nobody would lose benefits if they got a job, because everyone gets them anyway, so more people would get a job.
That's the angle the Brexit Party would approach it from. Obviously, few people would explain it as obnoxiously as I just have, but equally, even the cuddliest of liberals would concede some of what I've just said is at least a little bit true. That's why a UBI is not really a Left/Right thing - it's either or both.
Does it make more sense why the BP might want to look at it now?
Talking of lies, didn't you say you were once a member of the Labour party?RingoMcCartney wrote:EMILY THORNBERRY resigned from the Labour Shadow Cabinet in 2014 after she was accused of holding working-class voters in "contempt" by appearing to mock a family's home draped in England flags. Five years later, the Shadow Foreign Secretary had no issues with appearing at a People’s Vote rally dressed in an EU flag, insisting “this is what democracy looks like”.
You could not make it up!!!
The Liebour Party -
Previously know as the "working class party."
Now seen as the Islington Dinner Party.....
When it was the working class party.....Spijed wrote:Talking of lies, didn't you say you were once a member of the Labour party?
hmmm...
Had even less chance of winning in those days though.RingoMcCartney wrote:When it was the working class party.....
Then, like now, I accepted a simple fact.Spijed wrote:Had even less chance of winning in those days though.
That would be via the bit about taking a flame-thrower to workers' rights, after deeming them unnecessary in the presence of a UBI.martin_p wrote:You’re going to have to explain how it transfers wealth from the poor to the rich to get Brexit Party attention.
If that were the case then no-one in Labour would have rioted and gone on strike when Margaret Thatcher closed the pits or tried to bring in the Poll tax.RingoMcCartney wrote:Then, like now, I accepted a simple fact.
Democracy-
It means sometimes you lose.
Don't ask Ringo tough questions. They make him disappear for a few days and this thread loses its comedy value.Spijed wrote:If that were the case then no-one in Labour would have rioted and gone on strike when Margaret Thatcher closed the pits or tried to bring in the Poll tax.
Were you happy to accept either pit closures and the poll tax because of democracy?
I would see a reduction in workers rights as a retrograde step.If it be your will wrote:That would be via the bit about taking a flame-thrower to workers' rights, after deeming them unnecessary in the presence of a UBI.
RingoMcCartney wrote:
You could not make it up!!!
The Liebour Party -
Previously know as the "working class party."
Now seen as the Islington Dinner Party.....
RingoMcCartney wrote:When it was the working class party.....
That would require someone to take a reasonable and rational view of things.Devils_Advocate wrote:Id be more concerned with our PM giving public money to some foreign bird he was most likely banging and taking her on his public office trade delegations than I would be of a pic of Emily Thornbury at a peoples vote rally dressed as an EU flag
Thats because you are a remianer traitor and you should know by know that Johnson can do whatever he wants as long as he delivers the Brexit that everyone who isn't a remainer traitor wants*Devils_Advocate wrote:Id be more concerned with our PM giving public money to some foreign bird he was most likely banging and taking her on his public office trade delegations than I would be of a pic of Emily Thornbury at a peoples vote rally dressed as an EU flag
Devils_Advocate wrote:Id be more concerned with our PM giving public money to some foreign bird he was most likely banging and taking her on his public office trade delegations than I would be of a pic of Emily Thornbury at a peoples vote rally dressed as an EU flag
TheFamilyCat wrote:Don't ask Ringo tough questions. They make him disappear for a few days and this thread loses its comedy value.
Yes, I meant more surprising in the current context with their stance of overturn Article 50, no second referendum.Paul Waine wrote:Hi aggi, only "surprisingly" by the Lib Dems if you weren't paying attention to politics 10+ years ago. Lib Dems wanted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty (2007, I think). Tony Blair's Labour also "promised" a referendum in their election literature back then.
Me too. I was just suggesting how the Brexit Party might sell it to their financial backers, that's all.AndrewJB wrote:I would see a reduction in workers rights as a retrograde step.
Excellent, we're now onto writing FACT in capital letters in the hope that people will believe the stuff you've made up.RingoMcCartney wrote:I've no idea why youd want to resuscitate the arguement that you previously lost!
Labour bailed the banks out. FACT
The eu did not intervene. FACT
Had the Tories tried to prevent the steel works folding it would have breached EU state aid law FACT.
You previously steamed in and said the above was "outright lies"
At the time , I posted 2 links showing what I was saying was accurate. 1 from the labour supporting Labour List website that interviewed a specialist who confirmed what I'd said. Another was a link that showed the government's own legal advisors said itd be against eu state aid rules.
I could go back and repost them if you like. But to be honest, I got a fair amount of satisfaction from proving your hysterical "outright lies " garbage to be just that. I suspect doing it for a 2nd time would be going down the diminishing returns road to be honest.
If you want to carry on with losing yesterday's arguement, fill yer boots, it fine by me!
You seem to be skipping the bit where many of them were elected on a manifesto of "we reject no-deal".RingoMcCartney wrote:You were the one clinging onto this mantra, that all remoaners and evangelical europhile zealots trot out. When democrats remind them that MPs are elected by their constituents on manifesto pledges. Which is the "they're our representatives not delegates , and they should act as they see fit"
So when I asked you whether or not youd find it acceptable if the majority of MPs " saw fit" not to hold a general election for 20 years, denying the People a voice.
You said
So basically when MPs , the majority of which, voted Remain , yet the majority of constituencies voted Leave. When the vast majority of MPs ( around 84% ) were elected on manifesto pledges that promised to respect the 2016 Peoples Vote. They can completely ignore their constituents and "do as they see fit" as far as you're concerned. Why ? Because you do agree with their democracy denying stance on Brexit!!
However, if they were betray their manifesto pledges and be at odds with the majority of what constituencies want and were "to do as they see fit" and act in a way you don't agree with. That "wouldn't be acceptable " !!!!
There's a special word for that aggi.
Hypocrisy.
Good effort!
So you haven't got any evidence to show that prices have risen in real terms. I thought not.RingoMcCartney wrote:
Aggi, in a nutshell , you posted the yellow hammer link.
You highlighted where it said any price rises brought about by a no deal brexit would disproportionately affect the low paid.
I pointed out that during the 40 odd years of eu membership prices had risen.
What you're clearly trying, but failing miserably, to do. Is convince both me and yourself that if prices rise, if we leave the EU, it WILL affect the lowest paid disproportionately. But while we've been i the EU, price rises HAVEN'T affected the lowest paid disproportionately!!!!
Utterly utterly ridiculous !!!
Discussed this today with libertarian friend, he has never seen any positive reports on this subject.If it be your will wrote:Ah, you're looking at this from the wrong direction. The first link is a lefty explaining to other fellow lefties why he thinks it's not a good idea (I could easily counter his objections, by the way). But this is all irrelevant for you and the Brexit Party anyway, because you would be approaching it from the right (touched on in your second link, but badly explained by the Indy).
Briefly, the right wing argument for a UBI rests on liberty, and its twin brother 'personal responsibility'.
It goes like this (I'll exaggerate it for the point of the explanation): Fine, life can be harsh, and sometimes unfortunate, but the current benefits system, with all its means testing and medical assessments, has created a mass of humanity unable to look after itself or take responsibility for themselves. Most people receiving benefits spend their lives pretending they can't get a job when really they just can't be bothered. Or people claiming they're too ill when really it's laziness, or a dreadful diet, or drinking too much. And because they're all lying, useless good-for-nothings, we have to spend a fortune monitoring them, assessing them, cajoling them into actually doing something useful for once, rather than scrounging benefits all day.
Rather than this farce, let's pay everyone the minimum required to live. If they spend it all on drugs, fine, they have to sleep on the streets then. That would be their own stupid fault. Pretending you're too ill to work? Well stop clogging up the GP clinics with your make-believe illnesses - we're paying you a basic income anyway, there's nothing to be gained from pretending you're ill anymore. And now that we're paying enough for you to live on, no questions asked, we can get rid of all these dreadful, market-distorting labour laws like gender equality, minimum wage, holiday entitlements and all that nonsense that just gets abused by the lazy anyway! We don't need these rights if we are paying you a basic income - if you don't want to work, don't, but if you do take a job, don't whinge about the conditions all the time. It's not as if you'd starve, you'd still get a basic income whatever happens. And a whole swathe of public sector staff becomes obsolete, with vast savings to be made. And the economy would be much more dynamic without being strangled to death with labour laws. And nobody would lose benefits if they got a job, because everyone gets them anyway, so more people would get a job.
That's the angle the Brexit Party would approach it from. Obviously, few people would explain it as obnoxiously as I just have, but equally, even the cuddliest of liberals would concede some of what I've just said is at least a little bit true. That's why a UBI is not really a Left/Right thing - it's either or both.
Does it make more sense why the BP might want to look at it now?
So you have people from all walks of life joining the BP. The majority of parliamentary candidates have never stood for public office. They range from housewife’s to NHS consultants.martin_p wrote:You’re going to have to explain how it transfers wealth from the poor to the rich to get Brexit Party attention.
Corbyn went to a private school.Cryssys wrote:Whereas the privately educated, multi millionaires that constitute the Conservative party have the best interests of the working man at the core of everything they do I suppose?. In the eight years they have been in charge, they have supported the creeping privatisation of health and education services people rely on. They cut spending across the board, froze the pay of public sector workers and have presided over a long term reduction in real wages.
It's not all bad news though, they were able to reduces some taxes: corporation tax,inheritance tax and capital gains tax have all gone down. Not that I can see that benefiting many ordinary working people.
You may have issues with the labour party but don't ever believe that the Tories care about the working classes. All they want is your vote and once they have that they'll forget about you at best or screw you over at worst.
Cryssys wrote:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/excl ... -5v0clbmmj
Strange that no one has seen fit to mention this. Can't help thinking some posters might have drawn it to our attention had it been Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris Johnson: a man of honesty and integrity, a man you can trust, a man of the people.
Depends where you live. In Burnley if you want to leave you have to vote for the BP. Do so even if like me you want a meaningful deal, as the BP won't get enough seats to form a government, but it will help stop remain parties such as the LD's and labour from getting into power and cancelling Brexit.Lowbankclaret wrote:Whilst we are debating Brexit.
How many on here are supporting Boris. I suggest we mostly agree he is not honest or a man you can trust.
Never voted Tory, but the only alternative is the Brexit party and I think it’s in with a chance of returning an MP to parliament.
If it be your will wrote:Me too. I was just suggesting how the Brexit Party might sell it to their financial backers, that's all.
Boris is a politician , a bit of a cad true but I generally think he’s a decent sort , though his heart has never been in no deal , he’s nothing more than “ soft” right and a million miles away from the “ facist pig” the left have people believe . To keep Corbyn out he’s defo a better option that Farage’s ego partyLowbankclaret wrote:Whilst we are debating Brexit.
How many on here are supporting Boris. I suggest we mostly agree he is not honest or a man you can trust.
Never voted Tory, but the only alternative is the Brexit party and I think it’s in with a chance of returning an MP to parliament.
Well as far as I understand it.aggi wrote:Excellent, we're now onto writing FACT in capital letters in the hope that people will believe the stuff you've made up.
The eu did not intervene. FACT
This would be more convincing if, when I'd asked about the details of the bail out process, you hadn't said "dont know, you tell me why". You clearly have no idea how the bailout worked but, as you don't understand it, you're happy to just make stuff up like the EU did not intervene
Yes I watched it.AndyClaret wrote:Breaking news.... Labour decides it likes the taste of splinters.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 694652603b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But doesn't it all hinge on whether we leave with no-deal or not as to whether they switch to the Brexit Party?Lowbankclaret wrote:Several thousand Labours voters just switched sides after that.
Ok, it's not for the BXP. It was always a long shot.Lowbankclaret wrote:Discussed this today with libertarian friend, he has never seen any positive reports on this subject.
I am not sure it’s for today but this might become a more looked at thing in the future.
Once automation really takes off I struggle to see how society will function.
I will continue to read more but I do think the overall cost of everyone getting enough is almost impossible to tax taxpayers enough to pay for it.
There's no escaping the fact most of the funding for the Brexit Party will always come from wealthy people (unless they develop a mass membership like Labour, which doesn't look likely at the moment). These backers have their own interests. If the grassroots suggest policies that will hurt the Brexit Party's backers, they will pull their funding. So policies will have to please enough rich people in order to keep the party afloat.Lowbankclaret wrote:So the way I as a member am being told this is all going to work is ground up policies.
So when doorstepping people issues will be recorded electronically and these will be analysed to come up with popular policies.
Now this has to be seen in practice.
If I mean if this is done in practice, I cannot see loads of people asking for a reduction in workers rights so it should not become a policy of the BP.
Now the proof of that has yet to be seen.
We won’t leave before the next GE.Spijed wrote:But doesn't it all hinge on whether we leave with no-deal or not as to whether they switch to the Brexit Party?
None of us can predict the future.If it be your will wrote:There's no escaping the fact most of the funding for the Brexit Party will always come from wealthy people (unless they develop a mass membership like Labour, which doesn't look likely at the moment). These backers have their own interests. If the grassroots suggest policies that will hurt the Brexit Party's backers, they will pull their funding. So policies will have to please enough rich people in order to keep the party afloat.
Unless, of course, the Brexit Party are to be funded on a charitable basis by philanthropic rich people, which seems to me so extraordinarily unlikely that it might as well be discounted completely.
Hope so, as that would surely mean the end of Borris with not meeting the 31st Oct deadline.Lowbankclaret wrote:We won’t leave before the next GE.
Spijed wrote:Hope so, as that would surely mean the end of Borris with not meeting the 31st Oct deadline.
But hasn't he said we'll definitely leave the EU by the 31st, deal or no deal (do or die)?Lowbankclaret wrote:Not sure your understanding his strategy .
The UK go for the underdog who everyone is against.
Now come on, I have met you and your an intelligent guy.Spijed wrote:But hasn't he said we'll definitely leave the EU by the 31st, deal or no deal (do or die)?
It won't look good for him if we haven't left at that point.
And as you suggested if we are still be in the EU when we have a GE the earliest we can have one is the last week in November.
The voting public is split somewhere around the 50% mark - if both sides go for tactical voting will it all balance out?Lowbankclaret wrote:Now come on, I have met you and your an intelligent guy.
No matter what he says, Parliament is not going to let him get out of the EU.
Parliament is a remain parliament and hence they will stop him.
That will play into his hands and the support of the public in my view.
My view is they will pay at the ballot box, but I may be wrong.
However I think not.
All I know is that whatever happens, just under half of the country are going to be ******* furious, which will just make it worse.bfcmik wrote:The voting public is split somewhere around the 50% mark - if both sides go for tactical voting will it all balance out?
Lancasterclaret wrote:All I know is that whatever happens, just under half of the country are going to be ******* furious, which will just make it worse.
We've ****** it, and all for blue passports and some overt racism.
Cheers everyone.