Election Year or Fear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Bit tetchy, AF…and if you want evidence of a negative post look no further than your own post #535. Hardly the personification of positivity were you?
At least we agree on neither of us wanting to be compared to Tricky, but as for last night I simply told it as I saw it…I’d give Starmer no more than 6/10, Sunak I felt was just rude and told lies, Julie Etchingham was out of her depth and the idea that anyone can answer complex questions in 45 seconds seems very flawed to me.

Hard to say something positive about something so poor.

---

Believe me, the relief is mine. I like my spine.
If you think Starmer came out on top of that, then you really are red tinted glasses.
He looked flustered, lost and was devoid of anything to instil confidence in anyone.
It should have been easy to batter an opponant already on the ropes. Yet he failed to do so. YOUGOV gave the fight to Sunak and considering the left wing bias on that site, was pretty damming.

All that came out his mouth was maybe/if/possibly/I'd like to but, compared to usual guff from Sunak which has already been proven to be failed.


Sunak: Psst, Starmer is going to hit you up for two grand!!
Starmer: I used to be Director of Public Prosecutions don’t you know.. and my Dad used to be a Toolmaker…

God help us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds

Believe me, the relief is mine. I like my spine.
If you think Starmer came out on top of that, then you really are red tinted glasses.
He looked flustered, lost and was devoid of anything to instil confidence in anyone.
It should have been easy to batter an opponant already on the ropes. Yet he failed to do so. YOUGOV gave the fight to Sunak and considering the left wing bias on that site, was pretty damming.

All that came out his mouth was maybe/if/possibly/I'd like to but, compared to usual guff from Sunak which has already been proven to be failed.


Sunak: Psst, Starmer is going to hit you up for two grand!!
Starmer: I used to be Director of Public Prosecutions don’t you know.. and my Dad used to be a Toolmaker…

God help us.

---

Lol…as I’ve said, I thought it was all poor last night, yet somehow you think your beloved ‘Sir Nigel’ is so much better.
Will that be the Farage who, in the last week of May, definitely wasn’t going to stand because what’s happening in the USA is so much more important…or the one that, in the first week of June, has taken over ReformUK because he felt ‘guilty’ at letting his ‘followers’ down…or the one who now wants to see off the Tories before taking them over?

In your own time. ;D

I've had enough of "charismatic" leaders who have catch phrases that slip off the tongue and sound appealing to the dumb masses unable to consider the wider implications of what's been said.

Farage is very good at what he does, unfortunately there is not a scintilla of evidence that he actually has any solutions to the "problems" he identifies, and thats putting aside the fact that he doesn't even identify the actual issues that need addressing, but highlights those he knows will attract the intention of the unthinking rabble.

Farage is an astute campaigner and effective communicator, but he is not interested in responsible government. He is a self-serving amplifier of impotent rage, not a purveyor of practical solutions.

As for these debates, irrelevant to be fair, the format isn't conducive to meaningful discussion, 45 seconds is not enough to provide a proper response to any issue raised and given that Sunak kept repeating the £2,000 tax rise lie - interesting point of attack from a PM whose government has inflicted the highest tax burden on working people whilst handing out millions to private companies and individuals.

I see Thicky thinks Yougov has a left wing bias, mm have you looked at who runs it??? Dear me, what an uniformed ass he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Universal income is an interesting yet fatally flawed concept. It can only truly work in a totalitarian state such that 20th century USSR became or indeed Maoist China. We can see how successful those models were in that both countries rapidly rejected the models in favour of more capitalist models and now the countries are two of the biggest "have and have not" economies in the world.

It to he income is set at too high a level there is no incentive for anyone to work as excess income is penalized through tax which is redistributed to fund others' basic payments. Economies would simply stagnate, there would be zero growth and ultimately inflation would wear the economy down.

The above comments relate to existing economic model. I suppose advocates could tear up the entire global economic infrastructure and redesign it from the ground up, but I for one don't live in la-la land.

---

Ah yes a dismissal of a concept, which has many forms and which could easily be assimilated into a modified version of the current flawed economic model! Oh and by the way there is at least one completely non totalitarian regime that has undertaken a pilot of a universal basic income but hey let your own prejudices and inability to consider change fetter your views!

Mm USSR and China, last time I looked they were states governed by a rich elite that followed a principle of central control over citizens. Though even you would ahve to admit that China has managed to raise millions of its citizens income levels, even if the result has made the governing elite a little nervous!

By the way both countries were about as socialist as Nazi Germany.

Odd that you omit to mention that bastion of the free and pure untrammelled capitalism, the USA, where the divide between the haves and the have nots is considerable and widening all the time.

There is a difference between living in la la land and being able to understand that there are different ways of doing things, which actually might improve things - perhaps cast your eyes towards Scandinavian countries where high tax levels haven't ****ed their economy but who seem to be able to deliver good quality public and social services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

I've had enough of "charismatic" leaders who have catch phrases that slip off the tongue and sound appealing to the dumb masses unable to consider the wider implications of what's been said.

Farage is very good at what he does, unfortunately there is not a scintilla of evidence that he actually has any solutions to the "problems" he identifies, and thats putting aside the fact that he doesn't even identify the actual issues that need addressing, but highlights those he knows will attract the intention of the unthinking rabble.

Farage is an astute campaigner and effective communicator, but he is not interested in responsible government. He is a self-serving amplifier of impotent rage, not a purveyor of practical solutions.

As for these debates, irrelevant to be fair, the format isn't conducive to meaningful discussion, 45 seconds is not enough to provide a proper response to any issue raised and given that Sunak kept repeating the £2,000 tax rise lie - interesting point of attack from a PM whose government has inflicted the highest tax burden on working people whilst handing out millions to private companies and individuals.

I see Thicky thinks Yougov has a left wing bias, mm have you looked at who runs it??? Dear me, what an uniformed ass he is.

---

YOUGOV admited it has a left wing bias, because of its membership you ignoramous. Its full of teachers/ NHS/ civil service. It doesn't matter who owns it you clown, its who fills in the polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Ah yes a dismissal of a concept, which has many forms and which could easily be assimilated into a modified version of the current flawed economic model! Oh and by the way there is at least one completely non totalitarian regime that has undertaken a pilot of a universal basic income but hey let your own prejudices and inability to consider change fetter your views!

Mm USSR and China, last time I looked they were states governed by a rich elite that followed a principle of central control over citizens. Though even you would ahve to admit that China has managed to raise millions of its citizens income levels, even if the result has made the governing elite a little nervous!

By the way both countries were about as socialist as Nazi Germany.

Odd that you omit to mention that bastion of the free and pure untrammelled capitalism, the USA, where the divide between the haves and the have nots is considerable and widening all the time.

There is a difference between living in la la land and being able to understand that there are different ways of doing things, which actually might improve things - perhaps cast your eyes towards Scandinavian countries where high tax levels haven't ****ed their economy but who seem to be able to deliver good quality public and social services?

---

That’s just another massive ramble in response to a post outing one of your more far fetched ideas, be better to list all the countries that have adopted your idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

That’s just another massive ramble in response to a post outing one of your more far fetched ideas, be better to list all the countries that have adopted your idea

---

That’s as may be…but the comments about Scandinavia do touch on a crucial, always to go unspoken, question.
Sunak’s allegations about Labour’s tax plans have been shown to be typically misleading and disingenuous nonsense, but ultimately…to have the good quality public and social services we all desire then we do have to fund them through taxation.
The choice would ultimately appear to be, whoever is in charge, lower taxes and poor services or higher taxes and infinitely better public and social services.
If such fund raising (taxation) can be done fairly and targeted properly which route would you choose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

That’s as may be…but the comments about Scandinavia do touch on a crucial, always to go unspoken, question.
Sunak’s allegations about Labour’s tax plans have been shown to be typically misleading and disingenuous nonsense, but ultimately…to have the good quality public and social services we all desire then we do have to fund them through taxation.
The choice would ultimately appear to be, whoever is in charge, lower taxes and poor services or higher taxes and infinitely better public and social services.
If such fund raising (taxation) can be done fairly and targeted properly which route would you choose?

---

Neither. Improve the process of service delivery to get more bang for every buck

Gold standard are our local GP surgery, head and shoulders above our previous GPs and any GPs we are aware of through friends. If they can do it, they all can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

Neither. Improve the process of service delivery to get more bang for every buck

Gold standard are our local GP surgery, head and shoulders above our previous GPs and any GPs we are aware of through friends. If they can do it, they all can

---

A tad simplistic or idealistic perhaps. Maybe you’re lucky. Maybe your surgery is indeed the role model for all GP surgeries throughout the country or maybe all ‘catchment areas’ are not the same.
Either way I wasn’t just talking about surgeries, but about schools, hospitals, the emergency services, social services, immigration services, care for the elderly etc.
Isn’t it the truth that the grown up question, the nettle we have to grasp, is…do we want better public and social services enough to fund them through higher taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

A tad simplistic or idealistic perhaps. Maybe you’re lucky. Maybe your surgery is indeed the role model for all GP surgeries throughout the country or maybe all ‘catchment areas’ are not the same.
Either way I wasn’t just talking about surgeries, but about schools, hospitals, the emergency services, social services, immigration services, care for the elderly etc.
Isn’t it the truth that the grown up question, the nettle we have to grasp, is…do we want better public and social services enough to fund them through higher taxes?

---

It is, and I dont