sign the petition

[KerrAvon]

The Great Leader has Kerr always reminds us off as according to the figures I have in front of me as increased the Labour Party membership from 190k to over half a million since he became leader of the party .

By contrast the Tory membership is below 100k , although it's difficult to get them to submit the real figure but trust me if it was a credible number you'd hear about it .

The world we live in created Corbyn , backbencher since 83 who voted as he saw it whether in government or opposition .

The way the UK is came to Corbyn , if he wasn't a credible leader of the opposition why his he probably in his strongest position yet and scaring the Tory government in to lets say unfavourable parliamentary practices .

Does he tick every box , absolutely not but he ticks enough to change this country for the better in my opinion .

The Kerr narrative to me is to keep things as they are and it will all work out well in the end .

Sometimes in life you need a shift , some friction , battles that need to be fought and won , I'm at a loss as to why Kerr can't see it , Thatcher had her view and acted accordingly and it's fairly obvious to most fair minded people that we need balance in this country and if you can't see that then you should possibly concentrate on feeding your chickens .

Your opinion Kerr is about as justified as Red Rob was in the 70's , you are actually the man trapped in the 70's and not me or MMM .

You've an historical record on the internet of defending muslim hate preacher's but I've yet to see you stick your name at the side of the working man .

Perhaps it's all about the investments with you , the tax you can avoid the finger in your ears when Amazon and Sports Direct are brought up on pages such as these .

I can only make a judgement on historical posting as you did recently in an attempt to drown out my opinion through ad hominen .

The difference between people such as us is that I'd tell you this to your face whilst you wouldn't even turn up .


Strong and Stable , aye alreight Kerr , go 12 months without pay with a new born and get back to me on strong and stable .

You know feck all fella .

Blimey.

If increased party memberships won elections, Labour would have romped home last year, but they didn't.

The Tory Party membership is slowly dying. It's a bit like the Church of England congregation, they are shuffling off this mortal coil and not being replaced. But the Tories still took fifty or more seats than Labour last year, which suggests that it obvious to the fair minded people of this country that a Labour government at the moment isn’t a good idea..

Corbyn has indeed been an MP since 1983, which means that he stood for parliament on several Blairist manifestoes - happy, it seems, to go to the electorate and be voted in on the back of those policies and then work to his own agenda. That was a bit dishonest of him, don't you think? Shouldn't he have formed his own party and stood on his actual agenda? He could have called it Real Labour or Continuity Labour or something like that. He didn't because he would not have been elected.

I’ve an historical record of defending Muslim hate preachers? I can assure you that I haven’t, but would accept the gig if offered – I believe in the rule of law and that everyone is entitled to fair treatment and a defence.

Why wouldn’t I refer to a poster’s previous postings? Isn’t it informative at times to see the views that someone has expressed previously? If that person’s views have changed then that person can always choose to explain. On this thread for example, your adulation for Corbyn is plain to see, but on another thread you suggested he should resign for not being hard enough on Brexit (Roly, MMM and raging look away now):

http://boards.footymad.net/showthrea...ighlight=sithi

I hope you will note the accuracy of my predictions on Brexit...

12 months without pay with a new born? What’s that about? Are you suggesting that it a government policy?

[millmoormagic]

And there's the difference, once again, all you ever do is concentrate your efforts on the monetary, not the poverty, and of course we ALL want the country to prosper, but i want us ALL to prosper, and not leave anyone behind, you seem to be very happy to do so, i'd love for people like you to champion the poor instead of the rich, it's a plain choice though, i suppose there's no kudos in fighting that fight is there?

Since we're quoting the Guardian, a bona fide member of the MSM..

https://www.theguardian.com/business...h-since-crisis

One thing we could do as a country to chase rich tax dodgers is change the emphasis on those doing the chasing, you put the thousands of tax inspectors chasing benefit cheats for a pittance onto the rich tax dodgers, and the few, very few chasing the rich, onto the benefit cheats...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d...graphs-5179901

Indicated my cuts, Trident for a start....

Once again, they're not bribing anyone, they're putting right a major wrong, you're posting this stuff, waffle, but elequent, as a direct result of free university education, the working man gave you that Kerr, people like me, and you're now advocating the denial of that same benefit to ALL our descendants and you should be ashamed, thoroughly.

[millmoormagic]

[KerrAvon]

I don't think you understand the graph that you put up. The clue is in the use of the word regions.

The graph comes from a study of regional variations in wealth between different geographical areas. One assumes that the wide variation in the UK reflects the fact that wealth has become concentrated in the South East, where much of the high value employment is and that there are areas in Scotland where hill farming is the only real industry.

Start a new thread if you want to talk about geography. For my part, I think the government was wrong not to push Osborne's 'Northern Powerhouse' ideas.

[KerrAvon]

And there's the difference, once again, all you ever do is concentrate your efforts on the monetary, not the poverty, and of course we ALL want the country to prosper, but i want us ALL to prosper, and not leave anyone behind, you seem to be very happy to do so, i'd love for people like you to champion the poor instead of the rich, it's a plain choice though, i suppose there's no kudos in fighting that fight is there?

Since we're quoting the Guardian, a bona fide member of the MSM..

https://www.theguardian.com/business...h-since-crisis

One thing we could do as a country to chase rich tax dodgers is change the emphasis on those doing the chasing, you put the thousands of tax inspectors chasing benefit cheats for a pittance onto the rich tax dodgers, and the few, very few chasing the rich, onto the benefit cheats...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d...graphs-5179901

Indicated my cuts, Trident for a start....

Once again, they're not bribing anyone, they're putting right a major wrong, you're posting this stuff, waffle, but elequent, as a direct result of free university education, the working man gave you that Kerr, people like me, and you're now advocating the denial of that same benefit to ALL our descendants and you should be ashamed, thoroughly.

And your argument isn’t about the money when you refer to the number of billionaires and suggest that the less well off need more? That’s as silly a point to make when you did it as when Roly did.

Ok. So your first link indicates that the number of billionaires in the UK is growing primarily because of the arrival of entrepreneurs from outside the UK. What would you like to do – ban them? One assumes that having arrived they at the very least employ local people and consume within the UK such as to generate tax revenues. Abramovitch, who is mentioned in the article, is a case in point. You may not like what he is doing at Chelsea (or Chealsea as the proof readers at The Guardian would have it), but the fact remains that he is injecting cash into the club, which then goes on to employ people.

James Dyson is mentioned in the article. I don’t believe that he had a particular privileged upbringing and recall reading that he had to re-mortgage his house and live on his wife’s salary from teaching whilst he developed the vacuum cleaner that made him rich. He came up with a good idea and took a risk to develop and sell it. What do you want to do? Take his wealth away.

Of course, other people’s wealth has risen through the rise in property prices and the rise in other asset values that has been driven by Quantitative Easing. As a house owner you will have benefitted from the former and as a person with an interest in a pension fund, you will have benefitted from the latter. It remains open to you to give both away if you feel that the growth in your wealth is wrong.

And what is Labour would do about the growth in billionaires? I don’t think nationalising the Royal Mail or the tuition fee bribe is going to have any particular effect upon them (save, of course, that injecting a minimum of £176bn into the economy by way of nationalisations will further drive up asset values).

Did you actually read the second article that you linked to? It explodes some of the common myths surround tax and benefit enforcement, including the notion that tax avoidance is a huge problem within the UK.

The article suggests that HMRC has 300 or so people working in its Affluent Compliance Unit – investigating people earning £150 000 plus. The fact is that you don’t need many people doing that work, because they aren’t many people earning such amounts. In addition, if you set aside your prejudiced assumptions for a moment , it’s not clear that there is a significant problem within the £150 000+ earning group; the major route of tax evasion is by the non-declaration of earnings. Yes, some of that might well fall within the £150 000+ group, but it has to be equally likely to arise through plumbers, taxi drivers, builders and the like not putting work through their books (which, by the way, is devilishly difficult to prove).

Benefit fraud, on the other hand, is committed by a larger number of people (that must be the case given that the amounts involved are often relatively small and yet £1.2bn per year is going down the tubes) and so a larger number of investigators is required. You may be happy with the notion of this sort of thing not being investigated, but I don’t think may people would agree with you: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-...wales-31837534

The notion that you could swap the benefit investigators into high end tax investigations is slightly bonkers by the way. The skills required are very different – high end tax investigation will require forensic accountants and lawyers.

The tuition fee bribe is a bribe no matter how you dress it up. I’m guessing that the ‘major wrong’ you are talking about is that people used to get free tuition, whereas now they don’t? That ignores the fact that far more people go to university now than used to (in part, because the income from tuition fees makes it possible to offer more places). And if it is a ’major wrong’ for people to be treated differently why is Labour so vague about what it will do about pre-existing student loans (saying hat it would be ‘dealt with’ during the election campaign, but then being ever so coy afterwards about what that actually meant).

And if Labour is so keen to address ‘major wrongs’ through different generations being dealt with differently, why is it proposing to impose VAT on private school fees? Wouldn’t it be a ‘major wrong’ that parents of children attending such schools would have to find 20% more after a Labour election victory than parents of children who had been privately educated in the past?

You missed my question by the way: What are your views on Labour planning to spend billions on the bribe and nationalisations whilst declining to reverse the benefits cap on the grounds of cost? Put another way, how do you think a food bank user would feel about Labour rejecting the notion of lifting the benefits cap on cost grounds whilst planning to give £7bn a year to predominantly middles class kids to go to university? Do you think he might consider that a ‘major wrong’?

[millmoormagic]

And your argument isn’t about the money when you refer to the number of billionaires and suggest that the less well off need more? That’s as silly a point to make when you did it as when Roly did.

Ok. So your first link indicates that the number of billionaires in the UK is growing primarily because of the arrival of entrepreneurs from outside the UK. What would you like to do – ban them? One assumes that having arrived they at the very least employ local people and consume within the UK such as to generate tax revenues. Abramovitch, who is mentioned in the article, is a case in point. You may not like what he is doing at Chelsea (or Chealsea as the proof readers at The Guardian would have it), but the fact remains that he is injecting cash into the club, which then goes on to employ people.

James Dyson is mentioned in the article. I don’t believe that he had a particular privileged upbringing and recall reading that he had to re-mortgage his house and live on his wife’s salary from teaching whilst he developed the vacuum cleaner that made him rich. He came up with a good idea and took a risk to develop and sell it. What do you want to do? Take his wealth away.

Of course, other people’s wealth has risen through the rise in property prices and the rise in other asset values that has been driven by Quantitative Easing. As a house owner you will have benefitted from the former and as a person with an interest in a pension fund, you will have benefitted from the latter. It remains open to you to give both away if you feel that the growth in your wealth is wrong.

And what is Labour would do about the growth in billionaires? I don’t think nationalising the Royal Mail or the tuition fee bribe is going to have any particular effect upon them (save, of course, that injecting a minimum of £176bn into the economy by way of nationalisations will further drive up asset values).

Did you actually read the second article that you linked to? It explodes some of the common myths surround tax and benefit enforcement, including the notion that tax avoidance is a huge problem within the UK.

The article suggests that HMRC has 300 or so people working in its Affluent Compliance Unit – investigating people earning £150 000 plus. The fact is that you don’t need many people doing that work, because they aren’t many people earning such amounts. In addition, if you set aside your prejudiced assumptions for a moment , it’s not clear that there is a significant problem within the £150 000+ earning group; the major route of tax evasion is by the non-declaration of earnings. Yes, some of that might well fall within the £150 000+ group, but it has to be equally likely to arise through plumbers, taxi drivers, builders and the like not putting work through their books (which, by the way, is devilishly difficult to prove).

Benefit fraud, on the other hand, is committed by a larger number of people (that must be the case given that the amounts involved are often relatively small and yet £1.2bn per year is going down the tubes) and so a larger number of investigators is required. You may be happy with the notion of this sort of thing not being investigated, but I don’t think may people would agree with you: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-...wales-31837534

The notion that you could swap the benefit investigators into high end tax investigations is slightly bonkers by the way. The skills required are very different – high end tax investigation will require forensic accountants and lawyers.

The tuition fee bribe is a bribe no matter how you dress it up. I’m guessing that the ‘major wrong’ you are talking about is that people used to get free tuition, whereas now they don’t? That ignores the fact that far more people go to university now than used to (in part, because the income from tuition fees makes it possible to offer more places). And if it is a ’major wrong’ for people to be treated differently why is Labour so vague about what it will do about pre-existing student loans (saying hat it would be ‘dealt with’ during the election campaign, but then being ever so coy afterwards about what that actually meant).

And if Labour is so keen to address ‘major wrongs’ through different generations being dealt with differently, why is it proposing to impose VAT on private school fees? Wouldn’t it be a ‘major wrong’ that parents of children attending such schools would have to find 20% more after a Labour election victory than parents of children who had been privately educated in the past?

You missed my question by the way: What are your views on Labour planning to spend billions on the bribe and nationalisations whilst declining to reverse the benefits cap on the grounds of cost? Put another way, how do you think a food bank user would feel about Labour rejecting the notion of lifting the benefits cap on cost grounds whilst planning to give £7bn a year to predominantly middles class kids to go to university? Do you think he might consider that a ‘major wrong’?

Once again you mis represent, as lawyers do, it's what you're very good at, very low to be honest, but whatever floats yer boat..
I don't want to ban anyone, anyone who brings wealth to our economy, by the same token, i want those same folk to pay their fair share, something i assume you don't agree with given the amount of times you seem to defend them, once again, that's the difference, not that you care at all.

James Dyson didn't have a particularly priveleged upbringing? no i suppose attending boarding schools and the Royal college of Art is something we all did then, what a pathetic statement that is, to add, there you go again, mis representing, pathetic,i don't want to take his wealth away, i want him to pay his dues, you want him to continue to amass wealth, i don't really understand how any patriotic Brit could support someone like him, gained his wealth on the back of British worker's then shipped his factory's off to Malaysia for the cheap wages and conditions, a pure money grabbing tosspot.

The very fact you have mentioned how highbrow and forensic it is to investigate top end fraud to support your view kind of suggests that there's many more doing it, and using more specialist accountants to dodge...how anyone could support that is beyond me.

As far as the tuition fee thing,dress it up however you like, you learnt your waffle through free uni education, why should Joe Blogg's daughter learn the same? double standards at best, shocking hypocrisy at the worst,you pick which one you are.

Given that many of those children have been getting bursaries regardless of their parent's total incomes then i'd say it would make for a fairer system, wouldn't you?

You know how i'd feel if i was a food bank user, i'd feel that the NHS is safe in the Labour party's hands, i'd feel that my kids would maybe get a decent education and the chance to go to higher education without the threat of massive debt (like your parents got), i'd that the welfare state would once again be something of a safety net, rather than a tool to punish.

[KerrAvon]

Once again you mis represent, as lawyers do, it's what you're very good at, very low to be honest, but whatever floats yer boat..
I don't want to ban anyone, anyone who brings wealth to our economy, by the same token, i want those same folk to pay their fair share, something i assume you don't agree with given the amount of times you seem to defend them, once again, that's the difference, not that you care at all.

James Dyson didn't have a particularly priveleged upbringing? no i suppose attending boarding schools and the Royal college of Art is something we all did then, what a pathetic statement that is, to add, there you go again, mis representing, pathetic,i don't want to take his wealth away, i want him to pay his dues, you want him to continue to amass wealth, i don't really understand how any patriotic Brit could support someone like him, gained his wealth on the back of British worker's then shipped his factory's off to Malaysia for the cheap wages and conditions, a pure money grabbing tosspot.

The very fact you have mentioned how highbrow and forensic it is to investigate top end fraud to support your view kind of suggests that there's many more doing it, and using more specialist accountants to dodge...how anyone could support that is beyond me.

As far as the tuition fee thing,dress it up however you like, you learnt your waffle through free uni education, why should Joe Blogg's daughter learn the same? double standards at best, shocking hypocrisy at the worst,you pick which one you are.

Given that many of those children have been getting bursaries regardless of their parent's total incomes then i'd say it would make for a fairer system, wouldn't you?

You know how i'd feel if i was a food bank user, i'd feel that the NHS is safe in the Labour party's hands, i'd feel that my kids would maybe get a decent education and the chance to go to higher education without the threat of massive debt (like your parents got), i'd that the welfare state would once again be something of a safety net, rather than a tool to punish.

You expressed concern about the growing number of billion/millionaires in the economy and then put up a link that attributes much of that growth to foreign entrepreneurs coming to the UK. Why wouldn’t I ask if you were suggesting that such people be banned, given that is probably the only way to address the issue that you were raising? Perhaps you should have been more explicit about the point you were seeking to make?

Your point now seems to be: i want those same folk to pay their fair share, something i assume you don't agree with given the amount of times you seem to defend them. What a ridiculous thing to say. Defend them against what? Your point seems to be based upon an assumption on your part that wealthy people don’t ‘pay their fair share’. I’m sure that some don’t, just as some plumbers don’t put all the work they do through the book and some manual workers do ‘cash in hand’ work. Nobody likes paying tax, but most people just get on and do it, with there being no reason to assume that the wealthy are any more or less likely to do it than anyone else.

This country taxes income, not wealth (although Inheritance and Council Taxes are indirectly liked to wealth) and it is entirely possible that a person coming to the country has only a limited taxable income here, but such people would still contribute through consumption taxes and by employing people, which is the point that I was making.

I have seen nothing to suggest that James Dyson had a privileged upbringing. I think there are plenty of people around who would say that attending a boarding school is not a privilege. As for attending the Royal College of Arts, I would assume that he is good at art, applied for a place as anyone can, and got one. The point is that his considerable wealth comes not from a ‘silver spoon’, but instead from him coming up with an idea, developing it and bringing it to the market, all at his own risk.

Again, you appear to be implying that Dyson does not ‘pay his dues’ Is that evidence based or another manifestation of prejudice upon your part? I have no knowledge about his tax affairs and no reason to believe that he doesn’t pay every penny that is due from him. Do you?

As for him being a 'money grabbing tosspot', I don’t know the bloke, but I do know that the James Dyson Foundation gave £8m to establish a technology hub at Cambridge University, £12m to Imperial College to support their school of design engineering and provides teaching materials to schools to promote engineering. He also partially agrees with you on tuition fees and provides supported places for students at the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology in Wiltshire:

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ents-loan-debt

I suppose where he goes wrong for you is that he isn’t a keyboard warrior who endlessly sits on his backside whilst pontificating about equality.

When you say that he gained his wealth on the back of British worker's. I assume that you mean that he provided employment and paid wages to people? That he later moved production to Malaysia is an example of what happens when the cost of operating in the UK becomes unattractive or non-viable , which, you may recall, is the point I made to you several times earlier in the thread in relation to Labour’s plans to increase the rate of corporate taxes, the minimum wage (without a compensating reduction in corporate taxes) and the number of public holidays.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make in respect of the question that I asked you about Labour’s plans to impose VAT on private school fees (which would, of course, price many parents out of that choice and increase the burden on state education). Do you seriously believe that many private school pupils receive bursaries? Where do you think the bursary money comes from? The fact of the matter is that policy would create exactly the same inequality that you rail against on tuition fees, but you can’t bring yourself to admit it due to yet another prejudice that you hold.

So you reckon the food bank user would rejoice at the NHS being safe in Labour’s hands. Why on earth would he think that when their manifesto proposes nationalisations costing a minimum of £176bn, a tuition fee bribe costing £7bn per year and yet only £6bn per year for the NHS and social care – about £16bn per year short of what the NHS alone is said to need. You also haven’t addressed how he would feel about the fact that they rejected doing anything about the benefit cap on cost grounds whilst pledging to spend the amounts I’ve described above.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

At least these carefully selected, meaningless graphs put a splash of colour on the page.

[gm_gm]

I do like a graph....but this only illustrates that our poor are better off than most other countries, but our rich are super rich.

Inconclusive in the very least

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I do like a graph....but this only illustrates that our poor are better off than most other countries, but our rich are super rich.

Inconclusive in the very least

But a bit of a crutch if you're lamely following the politics of envy