O/T - general election 2019

[great_fire]

One thing we haven’t really seen yet is the “smear campaign” where one or more of the key players gets accused of something ie Boris/ Corbyn/ Farage screwed my cat in 1974.

Something easy to make up, completely untrue but good enough to start a media storm.

I saw one yesterday on Twitter; "Jo Swinson shot red squirrels for kicks"!

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I saw one yesterday on Twitter; "Jo Swinson shot red squirrels for kicks"!

That’s the sort of thing, however she doesn’t qualify as a “key player” squirrels or no squirrels

[ragingpup]

[QUOTE=Shark27;39363615]

Yes we should target all. Why is it when someone says we should do something about benefits the counter is 'well what about the rich people who are cheating the system's and vice verca. People who are aligned to one particular party seem to think only one of these can be done.

If people free their minds they may realise that we could do both.

Not everyone can be tarred with the same brush but it's quite obvious that there are many people that could have a barrow full of tar chucked at them.

Totally agree that we should do what we can to minimise losses from benefits and tax cheats. But as the revenues from tax cheats tend to cost us around 3 times more in lost revenue, the recurrent focus on benefits cheats seems a little unbalanced at times.

[WanChaiMiller]

Why?

It’s 20% slower on average than the USA and Germany.

It’s above average on a global scale but it should be better. Believe me, I know.

It’s perfectly adequate. Better than adequate where it’s really needed.

What is?

[ragingpup]

Well done for noticing that your assumption that I am opposed to increases in taxes was wrong. I've signalled it often enough, but your preducices and belief in your own moral superiority blinded you.

Your blindness extends to your suggestion that I don't offer any ideas. I have suggested a policy of honesty, it is you has no solution other than selling unattainable and job destroying 'somebody else will pay' promises on the doorstep on the basis that people won't buy the truth.

On the one hand you're suggesting that if the public want services, they have to accept that they have to pay for them. This is fine, but then you're saying that the 1p/2p wouldn't be anywhere near enough to pay for what's needed and we have to be honest about that. Great, OK. I hear you. So how do you suggest that we raise the large sums of money to pay for the improved services that I think were both agreeing that we'd quite like to see?

[WanChaiMiller]

Why?

It’s 20% slower on average than the USA and Germany.

It’s above average on a global scale but it should be better. Believe me, I know.

It’s perfectly adequate. Better than adequate where it’s really needed.

I'll ansewer the why. Much more of our life will be done on-line going forward. Lets be ready.

But this is Britain. Our roads are adequate, railways adequate, airports adequate, deep sea ports adequate, housing adequate, education adequate, technology in industry adequate. It all adds up to inadequate for me - lower half of the table.

[Shark27]

[QUOTE=ragingpup;39363638]

Totally agree that we should do what we can to minimise losses from benefits and tax cheats. But as the revenues from tax cheats tend to cost us around 3 times more in lost revenue, the recurrent focus on benefits cheats seems a little unbalanced at times.

I would say that it is unbalanced because a lot of working people would feel more aggrieved about the people who don't get out of bed in a morning (or if they do they take their kids to school in their dressing gown - been banned at a school close to me by the way), bringing down the local areas, having children who don't eat breakfast, go to bed when they want, thus causing general disruption to their classmates, these kids getting older and committing crimes, burgling people's houses etc, getting free prescriptions in the chemist, having kids to carry on that cycle (not all granted). Yes, that's why they may feel a bit more biased.

[howdydoo]

[QUOTE=ragingpup;39363638]

Totally agree that we should do what we can to minimise losses from benefits and tax cheats. But as the revenues from tax cheats tend to cost us around 3 times more in lost revenue, the recurrent focus on benefits cheats seems a little unbalanced at times.

A cheat is a cheat.

No imbalance at all.

Saying that, a benefit cheat who has never pumped a penny back into society, is really the lowest of the low.

If I’m paying for it, I’ll focus on that lowlife all day long if I want to.

[ragingpup]

[QUOTE=howdydoo;39363648]

A cheat is a cheat.

No imbalance at all.

Saying that, a benefit cheat who has never pumped a penny back into society, is really the lowest of the low.

If I’m paying for it, I’ll focus on that lowlife all day long if I want to.

It was shown recently that people have the perception that 25p in every £ of benefit money allocated by the treasury is lost to benefit cheats.

The actual amount is 1p in the £.

But of course you can focus your anger on these all you like. You could indulge yourself and exterminate them all in a heartbeat, but it would make very little difference to what money we have available for things that we need.

Anyone have idea why this perception is so hugely wrong and so widespread?

[howdydoo]

I'll ansewer the why. Much more of our life will be done on-line going forward. Lets be ready.

But this is Britain. Our roads are adequate, railways adequate, airports adequate, deep sea ports adequate, housing adequate, education adequate, technology in industry adequate. It all adds up to inadequate for me - lower half of the table.

Above average actually.

As an individual, how much assistance do you need? Are you spoon fed?

In all but a small percentage of areas, I can video conference and communicate with people anywhere in the world.