General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 37 of 450 < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >

Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Apr 17 9.04am
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch It is was too soon to know what, if any fallout will happen due to Brexit. The fall in the pound isn't much less than 20% as he says. It is 20%. And I voted Leave. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 21 Apr 17 9.04am

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

It is was too soon to know what, if any fallout will happen due to Brexit.

The fall in the pound isn't much less than 20% as he says. It is 20%. And I voted Leave.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 9.04am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Inequality is much lower in Germany because they have massively screwed the poorer parts of the EU much to their personal benefit. Also....very little economic socialism in Germany. Also, the Nordic countries have advantages over larger countries. Some of them have access to large natural resources, which for small nations provides huge advantages. Also, there is no real socialism within these countries....Though I will agree with you that they do some systems far better than us. However their system works because their culture has been homogeneous for a long time. The more they tear that down with immigration the more fractured their society will become and the less well systems will work. That makes no sense... How would that make inequality lower?? Also Denmark, while it does have oil and gas reserves, is primarily a manufacturing and agriculture led economy and is a net exporter of both. They have also committed to moving to almost total use of renewable energy by 2050. Finland doesn't really have oil, it's main natural resource is trees. Their government spends huge amounts on training, education and R&D. Tax rates in Denmark are above 50% on income for high earners (in total not just top slice) and is one of the highest in the world. They don't seem to mind though. The benefits of less inequality and adequate government investment seem to be worth it!
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 21 Apr 17 9.04am

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Inequality is much lower in Germany because they have massively screwed the poorer parts of the EU much to their personal benefit.

Also....very little economic socialism in Germany.

Also, the Nordic countries have advantages over larger countries. Some of them have access to large natural resources, which for small nations provides huge advantages. Also, there is no real socialism within these countries....Though I will agree with you that they do some systems far better than us. However their system works because their culture has been homogeneous for a long time. The more they tear that down with immigration the more fractured their society will become and the less well systems will work.

That makes no sense... How would that make inequality lower??

Also Denmark, while it does have oil and gas reserves, is primarily a manufacturing and agriculture led economy and is a net exporter of both. They have also committed to moving to almost total use of renewable energy by 2050.

Finland doesn't really have oil, it's main natural resource is trees. Their government spends huge amounts on training, education and R&D.

Tax rates in Denmark are above 50% on income for high earners (in total not just top slice) and is one of the highest in the world. They don't seem to mind though. The benefits of less inequality and adequate government investment seem to be worth it!

Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 21 Apr 17 9.10am
Originally posted by davenotamonkey If it was "too soon", why were all the scaremongering referendum treasury reports and forecasts for "Brexit" on a timeline of "XX months after the Brexit vote"? Go back and look at them. They lay out what the effect would be after a Brexit vote. There were the pathetic "oh, but we haven't enacted A50 yet" excuses. OK, I'll be generous. Now we have. Where's the armageddon? I'm still waiting for the punishment budget, personally. Do you know whether there will be freedom of movement Do you know whether European residents will be allowed to stay Do you know whether we will have any trade agreements in place come Brexit Day? No one, absolutely no one knows what will happen. It may be the best thing that has happened to the country in 50 years, it could be the worst. Time will tell. I wouldn't crow about it just yet, as Rudi says the pound has dropped 20% already. And yes, I am aware that there are pros and cons to that the dignified don't even enter in the game
Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 21 Apr 17 9.10am

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

If it was "too soon", why were all the scaremongering referendum treasury reports and forecasts for "Brexit" on a timeline of "XX months after the Brexit vote"? Go back and look at them. They lay out what the effect would be after a Brexit vote.

There were the pathetic "oh, but we haven't enacted A50 yet" excuses. OK, I'll be generous. Now we have. Where's the armageddon? I'm still waiting for the punishment budget, personally.

Do you know whether there will be freedom of movement
Do you know whether European residents will be allowed to stay
Do you know whether we will have any trade agreements in place come Brexit Day?

No one, absolutely no one knows what will happen. It may be the best thing that has happened to the country in 50 years, it could be the worst. Time will tell.

I wouldn't crow about it just yet, as Rudi says the pound has dropped 20% already. And yes, I am aware that there are pros and cons to that

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 9.43am
Originally posted by davenotamonkey It's fascinating how these "Leader's debates" have become a thing. I was originally quite enthusiastic for them,, but it became evident they were just an instrument of the media circus, and do little to move debate on. Another unwelcome Americanization (sic) of our political process. As was made clear in the US election, there is no attempt at impartiality and clear precedent for "leaking" questions to the preferred media darling. If you rely on a televised debate of polished soundbites to guide your way, then perhaps better not to vote. Read the manifestos, at the very least. As for May not doing them: not sure I care. No doubt she'll be called chicken. Which is an ironic label for a PM that just called a snap election despite having office until 2020. The real reason behind calling the election I imagine is confidence of increasing her majority but concern over impending CPS prosecutions of Tory MPs who broke election rules in 2015. So maybe not a chicken for refusing debates - I agree they are more a spectacle than anything useful - but she could be called a chicken for running away from the CPS prosecutions issue.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 21 Apr 17 9.43am

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

It's fascinating how these "Leader's debates" have become a thing. I was originally quite enthusiastic for them,, but it became evident they were just an instrument of the media circus, and do little to move debate on. Another unwelcome Americanization (sic) of our political process.

As was made clear in the US election, there is no attempt at impartiality and clear precedent for "leaking" questions to the preferred media darling.

If you rely on a televised debate of polished soundbites to guide your way, then perhaps better not to vote. Read the manifestos, at the very least.

As for May not doing them: not sure I care. No doubt she'll be called chicken. Which is an ironic label for a PM that just called a snap election despite having office until 2020.

The real reason behind calling the election I imagine is confidence of increasing her majority but concern over impending CPS prosecutions of Tory MPs who broke election rules in 2015. So maybe not a chicken for refusing debates - I agree they are more a spectacle than anything useful - but she could be called a chicken for running away from the CPS prosecutions issue.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 10.03am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Before the EU Referendum, the Remain camp told us that the economy would collapse, the pound would fall 20% against the dollar, the FTSE would nosedive and companies flee from Britain. None of this has of course happened, apart from a much less steep fall in the value of the pound. Instead the FTSE has reached record highs, the economy has grown and companies are investing in Britain. However, if Corbyn's Labour are elected all of the dire predictions would come to pass - in spades. Yet many of the very people who tried to scare us with the doom-mongering are telling us to vote Labour. Brexit hasn't happened yet. Jobs are, as we speak, being moved out of the UK, along with international agencies and companies. The FTSE moves with negative correlation to the pound and the value of the pound reflects investors confidence in the future of the underlying economy. These things weren't predicted to happen 24th June, but over time post Brexit. What has already happen, ironically, is billions of pounds worth of UK property has been sold from UK investors and pension funds to foreign investors, mainly from Asia, the biggest example is the Cheesegrater which was sold by British Land to a Chinese company for over £1bn. Just a fortnight ago a Chinese investor purchased the Nestle building and surrounding buildings in Croydon. This was brought about by UK investors being concerned about the future of the economy, particularly for office occupiers in London so pulling their money out, and the fall in the value of the pound, which made purchasing UK property using foreign currency much cheaper. Why is this ironic? Well the direct result of this is when British companies pay their rent each quarter a significantly larger proportion than pre-Brexit goes straight out of the country. Rather than going into a pension pot for UK citizens these rents now go to China or wherever else. This is basically like importing property. In a vote to stop letting people come here to work and contribute to society and the economy, the Brexit brigade has accelerated the removal of British assets owned by British interests and results in money flowing directly out of the economy. The largest landowner in London is Qatar Holdings. The government of Qatar are the 51st biggest owner of London property. The government of Kuwait is the 16th. This has only got worse since 23rd June.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 21 Apr 17 10.03am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Before the EU Referendum, the Remain camp told us that the economy would collapse, the pound would fall 20% against the dollar, the FTSE would nosedive and companies flee from Britain. None of this has of course happened, apart from a much less steep fall in the value of the pound. Instead the FTSE has reached record highs, the economy has grown and companies are investing in Britain.
However, if Corbyn's Labour are elected all of the dire predictions would come to pass - in spades. Yet many of the very people who tried to scare us with the doom-mongering are telling us to vote Labour.

Brexit hasn't happened yet. Jobs are, as we speak, being moved out of the UK, along with international agencies and companies.

The FTSE moves with negative correlation to the pound and the value of the pound reflects investors confidence in the future of the underlying economy. These things weren't predicted to happen 24th June, but over time post Brexit.

What has already happen, ironically, is billions of pounds worth of UK property has been sold from UK investors and pension funds to foreign investors, mainly from Asia, the biggest example is the Cheesegrater which was sold by British Land to a Chinese company for over £1bn. Just a fortnight ago a Chinese investor purchased the Nestle building and surrounding buildings in Croydon. This was brought about by UK investors being concerned about the future of the economy, particularly for office occupiers in London so pulling their money out, and the fall in the value of the pound, which made purchasing UK property using foreign currency much cheaper. Why is this ironic? Well the direct result of this is when British companies pay their rent each quarter a significantly larger proportion than pre-Brexit goes straight out of the country. Rather than going into a pension pot for UK citizens these rents now go to China or wherever else. This is basically like importing property. In a vote to stop letting people come here to work and contribute to society and the economy, the Brexit brigade has accelerated the removal of British assets owned by British interests and results in money flowing directly out of the economy.

The largest landowner in London is Qatar Holdings. The government of Qatar are the 51st biggest owner of London property. The government of Kuwait is the 16th. This has only got worse since 23rd June.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 21 Apr 17 10.08am
Originally posted by Pikester Nick - there's probably not many Conservative voters who don't agree with all that either. You come across as having this blinkered view that every Tory voter has a massive portfolio of shares and a private health plan and couldn't give a monkey's about the disabled, gay and poor members of society. The truth is most Conservative voters would like the NHS to be better funded. Most Conservative voters would like London to be populated by Londoners and not foreign investors. Most Conservative voters would like wealth to be better distributed. But most Conservative voters know that Labour always get the mix wrong. They fall over themselves to give everyone with a bad back a disabled badge and a motorbility car. They go out of their way to ensure the gay members of society get investment. They always end up bankrupting the country whilst pretending to be a latter day Robin Hood. The hardworking people of Britain are then left with a choice of knowing they are propping up the Tories mates at large corporations or watching Labour fund every 'good' cause going and screw up the economy. You really need to stop seeing it as a good against evil battle and realise that Conservative voters are not a bunch of property barons looking for a Tax dodge - but members of society looking for an acceptable alternative yet being offered Corbyn, Kinnock, Foot, Blair, Brown etc. and pie in the sky dreams of everybody being equal. What a load of rubbish. What evidence (data and analysis) do you have to back this up? This discussion has been one of data and analysis provided by those of us on here who would rather not have the Tories and then unsupported claims from the more right wing. I've not seen one bit of data used by anyone else on here that backs up your claims. Also the assertion that Labour's policies are unworkable - where is your evidence of this? I can direct you to more than one Nobel Laureate who would argue that such plans are workable, and empirical evidence to back them up.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 21 Apr 17 10.08am

Originally posted by Pikester

Nick - there's probably not many Conservative voters who don't agree with all that either.

You come across as having this blinkered view that every Tory voter has a massive portfolio of shares and a private health plan and couldn't give a monkey's about the disabled, gay and poor members of society.

The truth is most Conservative voters would like the NHS to be better funded. Most Conservative voters would like London to be populated by Londoners and not foreign investors. Most Conservative voters would like wealth to be better distributed.

But most Conservative voters know that Labour always get the mix wrong. They fall over themselves to give everyone with a bad back a disabled badge and a motorbility car. They go out of their way to ensure the gay members of society get investment. They always end up bankrupting the country whilst pretending to be a latter day Robin Hood.

The hardworking people of Britain are then left with a choice of knowing they are propping up the Tories mates at large corporations or watching Labour fund every 'good' cause going and screw up the economy.

You really need to stop seeing it as a good against evil battle and realise that Conservative voters are not a bunch of property barons looking for a Tax dodge - but members of society looking for an acceptable alternative yet being offered Corbyn, Kinnock, Foot, Blair, Brown etc. and pie in the sky dreams of everybody being equal.

What a load of rubbish. What evidence (data and analysis) do you have to back this up?

This discussion has been one of data and analysis provided by those of us on here who would rather not have the Tories and then unsupported claims from the more right wing. I've not seen one bit of data used by anyone else on here that backs up your claims.

Also the assertion that Labour's policies are unworkable - where is your evidence of this? I can direct you to more than one Nobel Laureate who would argue that such plans are workable, and empirical evidence to back them up.

Alert a moderator to this post

Penge Eagle Beckenham 21 Apr 17 10.23am
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle What a load of rubbish. What evidence (data and analysis) do you have to back this up? This discussion has been one of data and analysis provided by those of us on here who would rather not have the Tories and then unsupported claims from the more right wing. I've not seen one bit of data used by anyone else on here that backs up your claims. Also the assertion that Labour's policies are unworkable - where is your evidence of this? I can direct you to more than one Nobel Laureate who would argue that such plans are workable, and empirical evidence to back them up. I take it you will be voting for Corbyn's Labour, in June. Sell it to me!
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 21 Apr 17 10.23am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

What a load of rubbish. What evidence (data and analysis) do you have to back this up?

I take it you will be voting for Corbyn's Labour, in June. Sell it to me!

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

steeleye20 Croydon 21 Apr 17 10.33am
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle The real reason behind calling the election I imagine is confidence of increasing her majority but concern over impending CPS prosecutions of Tory MPs who broke election rules in 2015. So maybe not a chicken for refusing debates - I agree they are more a spectacle than anything useful - but she could be called a chicken for running away from the CPS prosecutions issue. I think she imagines she will have more clout in the EU if she can be elected and able to portray the country as united. To be elected is a plus but to win an election does not mean that the voters are united over brexit the public is not stupid they realise this is largely to be determined in the EU. The NHS housing lots of other issues important to us and which are decided here they should be at the front, pushing brexit all the time covers up the realities of our day to day existence. Take away brexit and you see the country in a different light and not necessarily to the tories advantage.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 21 Apr 17 10.33am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I think she imagines she will have more clout in the EU if she can be elected and able to portray the country as united.

To be elected is a plus but to win an election does not mean that the voters are united over brexit the public is not stupid they realise this is largely to be determined in the EU.

The NHS housing lots of other issues important to us and which are decided here they should be at the front, pushing brexit all the time covers up the realities of our day to day existence.

Take away brexit and you see the country in a different light and not necessarily to the tories advantage.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Apr 17 10.34am
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle What a load of rubbish. What evidence (data and analysis) do you have to back this up? This discussion has been one of data and analysis provided by those of us on here who would rather not have the Tories and then unsupported claims from the more right wing. I've not seen one bit of data used by anyone else on here that backs up your claims. Also the assertion that Labour's policies are unworkable - where is your evidence of this? I can direct you to more than one Nobel Laureate who would argue that such plans are workable, and empirical evidence to back them up. Pikester has a point. I've heard of someone, through a trusted contact, who phoned up the DSS under either Blair or Brown because it was a roundabout 2007, to claim dole. He was encouraged to go on incapacity benefit. He could work, but now didn't have to. Within Cameron's coalition he was back working. The motorbility provision is very expensive. The cars are given back within 2 or 3 years. There's something wrong going on there. I have no doubt that Labour's policies are workable, and probably affordable. Most had it pretty good in the noughties. The problem is that there will always be an economic cycle and that is when things get turned upside down. You tell me a time when it hasn't. That is unless we adopt Scandinavian income tax rates and that won't ever happen in the uk unless there's another world war or catastrophe or civil war. If this Nobel Laureate is so spot on, why is it not known, popular, being practiced now, everywhere. What did Blackadder tell Baldrick when explaining the British teaming up with France and Rusdia and the Germans teaming up with Austria Hungria to prevent war? ''There's one fatal flaw with their plan.'' '''What's that?'' ''It's bollox.'' COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 21 Apr 17 10.34am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

What a load of rubbish. What evidence (data and analysis) do you have to back this up?

Pikester has a point. I've heard of someone, through a trusted contact, who phoned up the DSS under either Blair or Brown because it was a roundabout 2007, to claim dole. He was encouraged to go on incapacity benefit. He could work, but now didn't have to. Within Cameron's coalition he was back working.

The motorbility provision is very expensive. The cars are given back within 2 or 3 years. There's something wrong going on there.

I have no doubt that Labour's policies are workable, and probably affordable. Most had it pretty good in the noughties. The problem is that there will always be an economic cycle and that is when things get turned upside down. You tell me a time when it hasn't. That is unless we adopt Scandinavian income tax rates and that won't ever happen in the uk unless there's another world war or catastrophe or civil war.

If this Nobel Laureate is so spot on, why is it not known, popular, being practiced now, everywhere. What did Blackadder tell Baldrick when explaining the British teaming up with France and Rusdia and the Germans teaming up with Austria Hungria to prevent war?

''There's one fatal flaw with their plan.''

'''What's that?''

''It's bollox.''

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 21 Apr 17 10.38am
Massively hung parliament in the offing, i reckon. Country is just all over the place and way too divided. Thanks, Tories. Thanks, Labour. You have run the shop so well over the years. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 21 Apr 17 10.38am

Massively hung parliament in the offing, i reckon. Country is just all over the place and way too divided. Thanks, Tories. Thanks, Labour. You have run the shop so well over the years.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Apr 17 10.40am
Originally posted by Kermit8 Massively hung parliament in the offing, i reckon. Country is just all over the place and way too divided. Thanks, Tories. Thanks, Labour. You have run the shop so well over the years. Another majority. Just only slightly more than last time and not 50 or 70. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 21 Apr 17 10.40am

Originally posted by Kermit8

Massively hung parliament in the offing, i reckon. Country is just all over the place and way too divided. Thanks, Tories. Thanks, Labour. You have run the shop so well over the years.

Another majority. Just only slightly more than last time and not 50 or 70.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 21 Apr 17 10.41am
Originally posted by nickgusset As a fervent Tory what do you think about your glorious lying leader unwilling to take part in a leaders debate? Because she is winning by a country mile. Ain't no need. Your political insight is very naive at times.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

21 Apr 17 10.41am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by nickgusset

As a fervent Tory what do you think about your glorious lying leader unwilling to take part in a leaders debate?

Because she is winning by a country mile. Ain't no need.

Your political insight is very naive at times.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 37 of 450 < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors