Stockbrokerbelt wrote:Cloud cuckoo land, I think making big companies & rich individuals pay their fair share of tax etc is pretty straight forward not to mention raising corporation tax slightly to fund the NHS a sensible idea. Where as we could all vote blue again just to see the NHS collapse, homeless & food-banks grow etc.

Raising Corplration Tax to fund tge NHS. Surely your not serious. Lowering it will attract more industry and lead to better pay.

Maybe a better idea to raise funds is scrapping payment to the big business protection racket that is the EU and being more judicious with foreign aid.

But of course the best way to help the NHS is for it to charge for treatment. They do this in France and other European countries . The patient pays to see a doctor, dentist or have hospitsl treatment and IF he or she is in the ststem receives @70% back from the government. The remaining 30% can be covered by a low cost insurance if necessary. Such a system would solve many NHS problems. But who would dare bring that in here?

Stayingup wrote:Raising Corplration Tax to fund tge NHS. Surely your not serious. Lowering it will attract more industry and lead to better pay.

Look, they still ******* believe it.

Next up, trickle-down economics! Because a rising tide lifts all boats.

Lancasterclaret wrote:And?

You are still missing the really, really, really important bit.

I mean, you are always the first to mention this kind of thing normally?

Lancaster, trying to set a trap to make out we're all racist is poor from you. Expected from others on the thread but you should know better.

This sort of fishing is why the board is getting very divided by political nonsense. .

Stayingup wrote:Raising Corplration Tax to fund tge NHS. Surely your not serious. Lowering it will attract more industry and lead to better pay.

Are you really that naive? Currently set at 19% and due to fall to 17% next year, we already have one of the lowest rates of CT in Europe. How much has your pay increased since 2010 in real terms. I doubt that lowering it any further would really make that much difference. Companies just pocket the difference rather than pass it on in the form of higher wages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When the Tories came into power in 2010 it was at 28% so they have already reduced by 9% during their time in office. How much lower are you prepared to go? Full on race to the bottom? Do you really think that is in the best interests of the country?

In 2009/10, Corporation Tax raised about £ 36 Bn at 28%, in 2017/18, it was £56.2 Bn at 19% .....

Quickenthetempo wrote:Burnley has a very good chance of getting a Brexit party MP. It will never turn Tory there is a lot of hate for Julie Cooper in the town, only a Peterbrough style postal vote could save her.

I think " hate " is putting it a bit strongly, although she's not particularly popular, I grant you ...

I understand she may have to fight to keep the nomination, with rumours that Sobia Malik, daughter of ex-Mayor Rafiq Malik, may be preferred by a large section of the Burnley Constituency Labour Party ...

Clarets4me wrote:In 2009/10, Corporation Tax raised about £ 36 Bn at 28%, in 2017/18, it was £56.2 Bn at 19% .....

I'm no tax expert, but surely the crash of 2008 would have put a fair dent in that first figure, so I'm not sure that's a fair comparison to make.

I really don't rate Johnson, he is a lose cannon and despite a posh accent quite thick.

bfcjg wrote:I really don't rate Johnson, he is a lose cannon and despite a posh accent quite thick.

Lose cannon?

Couldn't even make a proper job of buying water cannons!

Despite he'd have you believe he was far from being a good Mayor of London.

Spijed wrote:Lose cannon?

Couldn't even make a proper job of buying water cannons!

Despite he'd have you believe he was far from being a good Mayor of London.

Why do you say that and how was he re-elected? From what I've seen many of his claims on what he achieved have been verified by respectable organisations to be reasonable.

bfcjg wrote:I really don't rate Johnson, he is a lose cannon and despite a posh accent quite thick.

He's hardly thick, and it does make me laugh when his opponents talk about his " extracirricular activities " ... three of the 20th Century " Icons " of the Liberal left, John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Muhummad Ali were serially unfaithful " swordsmen " ....

I believe that Boris is just what the country needs a lose cannon with balls to take the country out of the Eu on the 31st October.

taio wrote:Why do you say that and how was he re-elected? From what I've seen many of his claims on what he achieved have been verified by respectable organisations to be reasonable.

His core vote in London tended to come from the wealthier areas.

As for his claims, which organisations have verified them ? The Tory Party?

Remember, it was a Tory party panel who cleared him of racism, a panel whose findings weren't legally binding.


https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... ndon-mayor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spijed wrote:His core vote in London tended to come from the wealthier areas.

As for his claims, which organisations have verified them ? The Tory Party?

Remember, it was a Tory party panel who cleared him of racism, a panel whose findings weren't legally binding.


https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... ndon-mayor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No I've seen articles from BBC and Guardian.

dsr wrote:Can't be both? Seriously? If someone comes to you and says "vote for me or I'll break your legs" and then stands over you while you fill in the postal vote - is that not fraud? Postal vote fraud isn't restricted to stealing votes - there are other forms of electoral malpractice.

...

Is that your strongest argument? That people are or can be threatened with violence? How covert do you think such voter fraud will be if thousands of voters suddenly start reporting threats of violence, all describing the same few perpetrators to the police, and describing similar experiences.

I don't think i could have imagined a more ridiculous argument if I had tried to parody what I imagined yours would be. Well done.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm sorry. What? Is postal voting massively open to fraud. Or is it "emphatically" not secret? It can't be both.

It's really ******* easy to find voter fraud via postal voting. You just contact the people from whom you got postal votes and ask "hey, did you vote?". If they say "no" then you have evidence of a fraudulent vote to investigate.

Good grief.

The paragraph you quote is my strongest argument against your (hopefully facetious) assertion that postal voting can't be both non-secret and fraudulent.

The two paragraphs you cut out are the stronger argument against postal voting.

I am really annoyed. The Tories are putting their party in front of the national interest which is a good deal. The blue rinse brigade and retired lieutenant colonels who would appear to make up the majority of their membership don't give a sh1t about anything other then their colonial view of Britain. I want to be free of a beurocratic EU but want to be part of a bigger trading block.

dsr wrote:Good grief.

The paragraph you quote is my strongest argument against your (hopefully facetious) assertion that postal voting can't be both non-secret and fraudulent.

The two paragraphs you cut out are the stronger argument against postal voting.

Ah, i get you now. So because one person can hold a gun to someone's head and force another to vote a certain way then that means we should do away with a highly popular means of voting.

I'll rephrase what i said to more clearly reflect what i actually meant, so that there's no possible way for you to deliberately miss the point.

It is almost impossible to secretly and successfully commit massive voter fraud through postal ballots without being discovered by holding guns to peoples heads and forcing them to vote a certain way.

And it is also extremely difficult to commit mass voter fraud via postal ballots in a way that cannot be detected BECAUSE the government knows whether someone voted or not. Were the authorities to even suspect voter fraud by postal ballots then they can just call the voter and ask them if they submitted a postal ballot. If they say they didn't then you have a case of voter fraud. And since massive voter fraud will obviously involve hundreds or thousands of fraudulent ballots then you can just call everyone in a constituency who is recorded as voting by post and actually ask them if they actuall voted. Not only does this let you know how many fraudulent votes there were, but it also lets you know which party benefited from it, which is pretty important information to conduct an investigation.

It's weird how Johnson is viewed as the the saviour by many. He's basically another Diane Abott. Academically very bright but has no control over the details.

Johnson blags it as he's very establishment but they're very similar

Well , well, well. ..

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... -1-8964103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quickenthetempo wrote:Lancaster, trying to set a trap to make out we're all racist is poor from you. Expected from others on the thread but you should know better.

This sort of fishing is why the board is getting very divided by political nonsense. .

I'm sorry, but you've had plenty of chances to say exactly what the problem is, and you won't.

Do I like Postal voting? No

Do I think its the reason the Brexit Party in Peterborough lost? No

Do I think the postal voting because its popular amongst a certain demographic is an excellent scapegoat for the Brexit Party? Yes

Do I think the failure of you and Andy to mention that demographic tells me all I need to know? Yes

AndyClaret wrote:Well , well, well. ..

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... -1-8964103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice to see andy is actually interested in electoral fraud all of a sudden.

We'd better re run the by-election then hadn't we?

Hadn't we?

Lancasterclaret wrote:Nice to see andy is actually interested in electoral fraud all of a sudden.

We'd better re run the by-election then hadn't we?

Hadn't we?

If wrongdoing is found yes, (but it won't).

Imploding Turtle wrote:Ah, i get you now. So because one person can hold a gun to someone's head and force another to vote a certain way then that means we should do away with a highly popular means of voting.

I'll rephrase what i said to more clearly reflect what i actually meant, so that there's no possible way for you to deliberately miss the point.

It is almost impossible to secretly and successfully commit massive voter fraud through postal ballots without being discovered by holding guns to peoples heads and forcing them to vote a certain way.

And it is also extremely difficult to commit mass voter fraud via postal ballots in a way that cannot be detected BECAUSE the government knows whether someone voted or not. Were the authorities to even suspect voter fraud by postal ballots then they can just call the voter and ask them if they submitted a postal ballot. If they say they didn't then you have a case of voter fraud. And since massive voter fraud will obviously involve hundreds or thousands of fraudulent ballots then you can just call everyone in a constituency who is recorded as voting by post and actually ask them if they actuall voted. Not only does this let you know how many fraudulent votes there were, but it also lets you know which party benefited from it, which is pretty important information to conduct an investigation.

If anyone does that to you, you accuse them of lying. Are you a liar? Or is it just another temporary problem of memory?

Please could you quote any post where I have said I wanted to abolish postal voting. And don't try the one where I said "Postal votes should be available only to those who need them, which in the case of able bodied people ought to be by personal application at the town hall, and in the case of disabled people by way of personal visit by a council official." because that doesn't mean the same thing.

Let me say this in terms that you might be able to understand. You asserted, and quite possibly still believe, that postal voting cannot be both non-secret and fraudulent. That was a single example to prove that assertion wrong. It was not a blanket argument against postal voting. Do you understand?

_______


And as a a separate issue, there is also suspicion (which was proved in the Whitefield case, but is as yet only suspected in the Peterborough case) that some people are being persuaded to give away their postal vote for someone else to use. In my view, this constitutes electoral fraud.

Couldn't resist browsing and found I had forgotten to log out. See the usual suspects still clutching at straws.
'Johnny Bercow, Johnny Bercow riding through convention' to the tune of Robin Hood......
Bercow will soon be impotent and it is wishful thinking on the part of those believing he can save the day for the remoaners.
All roads lead to Brexit.
All tickets covered. Boris Johnson for a line, Nigel Farage for a full house.

Elizabeth wrote:Couldn't resist browsing and found I had forgotten to log out. See the usual suspects still clutching at straws.
'Johnny Bercow, Johnny Bercow riding through convention' to the tune of Robin Hood......
Bercow will soon be impotent and it is wishful thinking on the part of those believing he can save the day for the remoaners.
All roads lead to Brexit.
All tickets covered. Boris Johnson for a line, Nigel Farage for a full house.

Think you’ve forgotten you’re logged in as Liz not Wrongo.

Very weak response Martin with a little m

I'm pretty sure word will get around.

I have an hour or so for the other remoaners to try and do better.

Remember people voted remain for the only reason they wanted to remain. Comedy gold, eh?

A kiss blown to martin by a remoaner, expected something to chew on but what can you do

I could imagine Boris J on Mastermind, scoring well on his specialist subject but not very well on general knowledge.

Darnhill Claret wrote:I could imagine Boris J on Mastermind, scoring well on his specialist subject but not very well on general knowledge.

Wouldn't even do well on his own specialist subject - even though he might know the answers - because he is completely incapable of giving a direct answer to any question and generally comes out with a load of bumbling bluster. (Throwing in a few Latin phrases shouldn't impress anyone).
Just about everyone who's worked with him says that he's very poor when it comes to detail, fails to prepare and therefore has to try to wing it, lacks any discipline, and fails to apply himself assiduously to anything.

That'd explain why he shampoos his hair in the mornings but forgets to rinse it out I suppose.

nil_desperandum wrote:Wouldn't even do well on his own specialist subject - even though he might know the answers - because he is completely incapable of giving a direct answer to any question and generally comes out with a load of bumbling bluster. (Throwing in a few Latin phrases shouldn't impress anyone).
Just about everyone who's worked with him says that he's very poor when it comes to detail, fails to prepare and therefore has to try to wing it, lacks any discipline, and fails to apply himself assiduously to anything.

For those reasons, i’d happily see him as Tory leader as he’ll be an absolute disaster. Unfortunately though, being Tory leader means being the PM and the thought of Boris as PM terrifies me.

Elizabeth wrote:I'm pretty sure word will get around.

I have an hour or so for the other remoaners to try and do better.

Remember people voted remain for the only reason they wanted to remain. Comedy gold, eh?

Bloody hell, Ringo, this is just creepy. Well done on your day off on Friday - the exception which proves the rule - but this is just lame.

AndyClaret wrote:If wrongdoing is found yes, (but it won't).

Jeez, better re run that other thing as well then

Lancasterclaret wrote:Jeez, better re run that other thing as well then

was there evidence of electoral fraud ? i must have missed that.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Jeez, better re run that other thing as well then

I don't think anyone would have a problem with just checking the postal votes for any election/referendum?

Would they?

Morning quick

Still waiting!

AndyClaret wrote:was there evidence of electoral fraud ? i must have missed that.

That does rather depend on what you view as unacceptable in elections.

But it's no shock to see suddenly taking an interest in this and acting all innocent why that you are so interested is it?

I don't like postal voting, but at the same time I understand it's a way for people to vote who wouldn't normally do it so as long as it's properly checked I've no problem with it

Quickenthetempo wrote:I don't think anyone would have a problem with just checking the postal votes for any election/referendum?

Would they?

This, if the postal votes follow the same pattern as the votes cast in person then there is no problem.

BTW, i would be more than happy to give up my postal vote to combat fraud.

I'm sure you would!

The argument against postal votes is one that I don't actually disagree with but you have to have ways to allow as many people to vote as possible.

Now, the sooner you two (And the Brexit Party for that matter) mention the bit you are all desperate to avoid mentioning...

Would it help if I asked which demographic uses most postal voting (certainly in the eyes of the Brexit Party)?

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm sure you would!

The argument against postal votes is one that I don't actually disagree with but you have to have ways to allow as many people to vote as possible.

Now, the sooner you two (And the Brexit Party for that matter) mention the bit you are all desperate to avoid mentioning...

Would it help if I asked which demographic uses most postal voting (certainly in the eyes of the Brexit Party)?

Why do i need to mention the M word ? so you can call me a racist like you usually do.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Morning quick

Still waiting!

Afternoon Lancaster.

Get yourself comfy, get the kids to fill up your father's day mug and put the cricket on.

Don't waste your day trying to find something that's not there.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm sure you would!
Would it help if I asked which demographic uses most postal voting (certainly in the eyes of the Brexit Party)?

The demographic that uses the postal vote most often is the over 65's ...

However, there appears to be some evidence of abuse of the system, essentially, election fraud, engendered by party workers with a South East Asian heritage. In recent years, party workers from all three main partys have been jailed for such abuses. Jeremy Corbyn's aide Marsha Thompson, has a similar conviction dating back to 2006, for electoral fraud offences in the London Borough of Newham.

In both 2018 and 2019, trials were held at the local elections which involved having to present I/D at the Polling Station in 13 Local Council areas, the Borough of Pendle being one of them. In Pendle this year, random spot checks were also made on Postal voters, which included some home visits. The results are as yet unclear.

As for Peterborough, the Police are investigating at least 5 complaints, including an individual who claimed on social media, that he and two others had disposed of 1,000 or so " Brexit Party " ballot papers by burning them. The Borough's Election office has also confirmed that there are a number of private houses, ( ie: not care homes, etc ) that have over 10 Adults registered to vote from that address.

AndyClaret wrote:Why do i need to mention the M word ? so you can call me a racist like you usually do.

Because its give context to your sudden interests in electoral irregularities.

Quickenthetempo wrote:Afternoon Lancaster.

Get yourself comfy, get the kids to fill up your father's day mug and put the cricket on.

Don't waste your day trying to find something that's not there.

Okay, not in your case I'm happy to accept.

In Andys?

hahahahahahahahaahahahaha! yeah right

Johnson will lose. He is a very big buffoon and nothing else. His 'rivals' are sorting him. When you attract McVey, others will depart his sinking ship.

IanMcL wrote:Johnson will lose. He is a very big buffoon and nothing else. His 'rivals' are sorting him. When you attract McVey, others will depart his sinking ship.

Whilst accepting your party's expertise in having un-electable leaders, Ian, I think you may have mis-read this one. If he get's to the ballot of members, I still think he'll win but not as decisively as his backers envisage ....

If he does become PM, I think it's safe to say he probably won't micro-manage every last detail ( unlike Mrs May ), but he may even revert to letting Ministers run their Departments, and make some decisions ...

Lancasterclaret wrote:Because its give context to your sudden interests in electoral irregularities.

I don't have a "sudden interest".