This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Kermit8 Hevon 19 Apr 17 5.53pm | |
---|---|
^^^^^^ re:willo Translation - 'watched Newsnight and read a newspaper in the last 24 hours' Edited by Kermit8 (19 Apr 2017 6.02pm)
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
We are goin up! Coulsdon 19 Apr 17 5.55pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Once again, may doesn't actually answer a question in pmq's and gets away with it.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
.TUX. 19 Apr 17 5.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Wow. Red coloured specs. Says the man who can't let go of his continual 'Labour in the 70's' gripe. You need to let go of your Labour prejudice
Buy Litecoin. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Kermit8 Hevon 19 Apr 17 5.59pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by matt_himself
There is a point in voting UKIP. We don't want May doing anything other than what the people voted for last year - a clean Brexit. The ballot sheet was clear, voting out meant out. May needs to be held to account on this and not wuss out and water this down. UKIP are the only ones who will do this. However, I would rather have May in than Jezza or that bellend Farron in a coalition, so I may end up tactically voting in order to make sure that the 'progressives' stay out of power. However, I do feel the same as Cucking. They are pretty much all a shower of s***e, career orientated bellends. Only Sir Nigel and a few other politicians, for example although I detest his politics Dennis Skinner, deserve any praise, for being principled.
Standards are very low in politics these days. I don't want an MP to be of the same intellect as the man on the street or have backward looking parochial intent. House of Commons has too many of those types these days.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 19 Apr 17 6.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Standards are very low in politics these days. I don't want an MP to be of the same intellect as the man on the street or have backward looking parochial intent. House of Commons has too many of those types these days. Sir Nigel is principled. Has never swayed from his vision of leaving the EU in 25 years of being a politician. A great man.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
matt_himself Matataland 19 Apr 17 6.12pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I'm pretty sure all it said was "leave the EU". Not "clean brexit". If you look at the raft of promises made by the leave camp they include things like single market access and a number of other things which imply anything other than a "clean brexit". The fact is lots of people voted to leave the EU but not for the same reasons and not with the same vision for brexit. At least now that can be set partially right as parties can say what brexit actually means in their manifestos. Don't forget the Leave campaign was chaired by a Labour MP. It's like the Scottish referendum. Leaving the UK means many different things depending on who you ask. Noone currently has any mandate to set our future course outside the EU only to "leave the EU" but after that the direction is unclear. Lib Dems have ruled out a coalition with Labour I believe. Did the ballot paper say 'Leave bits of the EU but not all of it'? No, it said leave.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 19 Apr 17 6.15pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by We are goin up!
John Bercow
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 19 Apr 17 6.30pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Kermit8
^^^^^^ re:willo Translation - 'watched Newsnight and read a newspaper in the last 24 hours' Edited by Kermit8 (19 Apr 2017 6.02pm) Wouldn't hire you as my translator.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 19 Apr 17 7.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Kermit8
"My surname is Stirling, to answer the location name point" A true British name that. Heralds from Germanic or perhaps Scottish ancestry of a combo of both maybe Immigrants were welcome Shall we just call you 'strawman Kermy'. As I have said before Kermy, regulated useful immigration is welcome....though I know reading other people's posts for detail isn't an interest area of yours. The original 'English' hid in Wales when Rome finally invaded in force.....So that silly post only works when used against someone wanting to stop all immigration as the English today are a mixture of all. Not willingly though....wars were fought....People in general don't like their lands and culture being altered without choice. Well....some of us do.....A minority always do. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Apr 2017 7.38pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 19 Apr 17 7.11pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I rely on reports I've read for my assertions on the impact of immigrants on the public purse and here is something I got from a very quick google:
Posters like the one I uploaded previously that was issued by UKIP are racist in my opinion as they use people's ethnicity as a tool to create negative feelings.
No, what you rely on is one side of an argument. The side that you agree with. It's only people like you who talk of 'blaming foreigners'. I don't blame people wanting to get to a better life. Who I blame are people like you who want to let everybody in.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 19 Apr 17 7.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by .TUX.
Says the man who can't let go of his continual 'Labour in the 70's' gripe. You need to let go of your Labour prejudice That last bit was said in jest to a fully paid up Lefty.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 19 Apr 17 7.19pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
What makes you think there was an "inability" to increase investment on infrastructure? Or for that matter investment in education and healthcare? Tax take per capita will be impacted by earnings per capita and the tax rate. If tax take per capita falls, as you suggest that would imply lower earnings per capita or reduction in tax rates. Earnings per capita has broadly increased since 1979, however average taxes on personal income have fallen from 10% of GDP to 9% in that time. That's over 1% lower than in the US, having been slightly higher in 1979. It's also lower than Canada, NZ, the Nordics and a number of other OECD countries. Tax on corporate profits has also shrunk as a share of GDP from 3.6% of GDP to 2.5% since the Tories came back to power. Social security contributions are also way below the OECD average and have reduced under the Tories. This is ideological. The Tories have decided to slash spending on infrastructure, policing, healthcare, education, while simultaneously reducing the tax burden. Reducing tax on companies doesn't promote inward investment in the way that politicians would have you believe. There are huge amounts of corporate profits which sit on balance sheets doing nothing. It actually takes money out of the economy far from creating some sort of multiplier effect. But more even than just talking about tax take - the government has been using QE for years now to prop up asset prices. This is completely irresponsible, and also ignores what they should be doing with monetary policy - increase money supply to invest in the economy and improve productivity. Creating asset bubbles with public finances just helps line the pockets of those who own the assets - the already wealthy. Using the argument that printing money for government spending just creates inflation is only true when an economy is at full employment - something ours is nowhere near. You can increase money supply and increase GDP in real terms up to that point. But this is against Tory ideology. Actually tax take is very important. While I'd agree with you upon the ethics of the various situations all I'm actually interested in is the end result. The elite will always protect and insulate itself and those saying that this can be changed by government are not only lying to themselves but to others. Only worldwide action can change that and hence it's pointless. You have to create an economy that the rich are willing to invest in....or they will take their ill gotten gains elsewhere.....As happened in France....You see that's what socialism gets the poor....an increase in support for the far right. Tell me a government that has used your ideas and has increased the wealth of its poorest?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.