hypochondriac

THB Wood Edwards Quarshie Do we really need Stephens in that group too? I assume ABK, Bednarek and probably THB are all off so that he gets in. Shame as I'd have preferred he wasn't involved.

I saw 15 million mentioned and I would have hoped we would at least have asked the question. I am aware that signing Championship goalscorers is difficult, I wouldn't expect otherwise. I'm also aware that there is an element of a gamble with every signing but it's why I said "less of a gamble" in my post. I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about here.

We get this every year and it's a ridiculous comment. He hasn't been written off by fans.

Oh right I didn't realise there was a limit to players who guarantee you goals. We don't have anyone in our squad who has the highest goals to game ratio in the championship for I think the last three years though.

I'm hoping this bloke will be decent but there were clearly players who could have been less of a gamble. Sargent pretty much guarantees goals at this level but I accept we've gone down the potential with a higher possible ceiling instead.

OK so now they've come back again a year later promising more damaging strikes and demanding more money. Presumably we need to settle once again. How do we deal with it in a way that doesn't give them even more money or encourage them to simy strike yet again in a years time?

Not particularly. I do think if you are legally avoiding tax then that's kind of the problem with the way the government has designed the system. If you get away with paying less tax than morally you should then if you're not breaking the law the ginger should be pointed at those in charge for allowing people to exploit the system. I'm not saying don't pay any tax but what I am saying is that in a global market it makes little sense to me to introduce policies that hammer the wealthy if it encourages growing number of them to just leave at a rate not seen in other nations.

It may be the case that rich people who stay and pay higher taxes are better people but if it continues to get steadily more unattractive to live here and more and more leave as a consequence, it's sort of irrelevant how we feel about those leaving. It's still going to have a negative effect.

If what skintsaint posted is true then I can't say I've sped at 200kmh I'm afraid.

Or maybe a healthy balance would be more sensible. I would suggest that given the rate they are leaving that that isn't a good direction of travel or a positive development that is going to lead to better outcomes for the country. Presumably you'd be happy if we introduced more measures so even more left and in greater numbers just so you could feel better about things.

It isn't happening to it is happening but it's only a bit (but many times more than every other developed nation) in less than a year. Good stuff.

You're right it's not a shock but it does suggest he may have some level of culpability for his and his brother's death unfortunately.

Whilst still tragic, it does rather change things a bit.

OK then but if we are saying that the government had no choice but to settle last year in order to prevent a summer of industrial action, what substantial change has there been that would mean that there will be other options available this year? Yes things may playput differently but you clearly have something else in mind.

Seize the means of production. Did you vote for Corbyn?

I can see a clear benefit to funding Ukraine. What's the benefit of making the UK a less attractive place for wealthy people and how does it outweigh the negatives consequences?

How do you propose that the upcoming industrial action that the junior doctors have voted for is prevented? Will it differ from how they were ended last year do you think?

I never said nor claimed that. You said that the priority was preventing a summer of strikes and industrial action from the doctors. My stance was that being a soft touch was simply delaying the problem which would be worse next time around. If we now get a load of strikes and industrial action this year due to the poor negotiation from last summer then how has that solved the problem?

With respect that wasn't answering the question. If we have large numbers of millionaires and billionaires leaving and that means we bring in less tax revenue that means we are going to have to either spend less or raise the tax revenue from the remaining poorer population. Yes? So having lots of wealthy people leaving the UK all at once isn't going to lead to anything positive unless you want the wealth gap to smaller so everyone can feel a sense of comradary when more people are all poor together.

Do you think the mass flight of millionaires from the UK will have a positive impact on overall standard of living for everyone? Do you accept that Labour's position from a year ago regarding the junior doctors did not actually solve the problem?

Yet more great news. The adults are back in the room for sure.

If capitulatibg and giving in to their demands is solving it then the Tories were imbeciles for not solving it sooner. I wonder if the reason they didn't is because they knew exactly what they'd be facing a year later. It's a common tactic I've seen though. We've had Labour being praised for sorting this and then when the inevitable happens and the doctors come back for more they blame the junior doctors. We've had similar with the rich people when it was dismissed as a myth that loads were leaving and then when it's proven that they are leaving they get blamed for being precious and not tough enough to take it. It couldn't possibly be the policies that are at fault.

Just so long as we accept that the original tactic of immediately folding and giving them what they ask for wasn't worthy of much praise given that it didn't actually solve the problem and simply postponed it for a year whilst making them realise that Labour will basically give them what they want if they make enough noise. Presumably you will want to avoid strikes and industrial action again this year so do we give in to the latest demands? What about the year after that?

Some people were pointing out the flaw of immediately caving last time while others were praising their negotiating tactic. Didn't you also consider it a myth that all those high net worth individuals were going to leave the UK and that it was scaremongering from the right wing media?

That went well then. No consequences to "caving in" at all...