Lord Duckhunter

You seem to have accepted the principle that lower taxes don't nessesarily mean less money going into the exchcheur Joensuu, now you are just debating the levels at which maximum revenue can be achieved. Is that really so far from Nigel Farage's position? Pap makes a good point regarding a minimum wage. It is a political gesture designed to con the people into thinking the establishment care about low paid workers.

"BRITAIN faces the prospect of yet another unemployed, angry Scottish person at large" http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/angry-scotsman-to-be-released-into-community-2013050867819

The Labour party seem to have tentatively accepted the principle that you can reduce taxes to boost the economy and in the medium to long term bring in more revenue. That's exactly what they're proposing in their call for a cut to VAT. Personally, I think they've picked the wrong tax but unless (and it's a big unless) they're just playing gesture politics, it's not a massive jump from encouraging people to spend by reducing VAT and encouraging them to do so by leaving more of their money in their own pockets.

Is that Guly's wife?

Perhaps you could point me in the direction of another industry which has similar regulations.

I had a real bad feeling about the end of season and I'm glad to admit I was wrong. Cant see Wigan staying up now, they wont get anything at Arsenal defending like that. Sunderland's GD means they should be safe and I'm sure Newcastle will get at least a point at QPR. That leaves Norwich, who need a point from WBA and Man C, and then it's down to goal difference if Wigan beat Villa. Personally I want Wigan to stay up, in the Europa league they're going to struggle next season.

They will pay extra if they earn more. 25% of 100k is more than 25% of 50k. You seem to have fallen for the Establishments line that reducing the tax rate will reduce the tax take, this is not neccesarily the case. When the Torys came to power in 1979 the top rate of tax was 83% and the lowest rate was 33%. By 1988 it was 40% & 25% yet tax contributions went up. The Establishment set tax rates for political or comestic reasons, when the only thing that matters is which rates generates the most income. If you reduce the top rate to 30% and it brings in more money than a 45% rate surely that's a good thing. Although I'm sure there would be plenty of people like you howling about fairness and how individuals like Harry Redknapp had received a tax break, just like there was when Geoffrey Howe reduced it and Labour cuased the commons to be suspended by kicking up such a fuss.

I'm amazed it's taken this long for someone to challenge it. Personally I don't think you can go round dictating how people should run private business. I'm surprised nobody has challenged the Transfer Window, a restraint of trade if ever I saw one.

Therefore any movement of the top rate of tax downwards, providing there is no increase in the lower rate, is actually making the tax system fairer. I am a basic rate taxpayer by the way.

Number 1, I'm not a Tory. And number 2, I've never written anywhere that I support this policy. I was merely pointing out that the "fairest" system is for everybody to pay exactly the same % of their wages. It seems that some people's definition of fair is slightly different than mine. I understand fair to be "the same for everyone".

Sorry I'm totally confused with your argument. Clearly someone earning 100k paying less of a % out of their earnings than someone someone earning 30K is clearly unfair. Surely the "fairest" method is for everybody to pay the same %. Would you think it fair that the wealthy pay more duty on their pint of beer, or pay VAT at 25%. Perhaps we could have a two tier petrol pump system, those with big cars could top up at more expensive pumps. It's clearly not fair that Harry Redknapp fills up at the same petrol station as me and pays the same price as me. He's a millionaire for gods sake, why should I pay the same duty as him?

We don't know whether UKIP's policies would lead to "economic disaster". We do know that Labour's and now the other 2's have done so. What is so ludicrous about a flat tax? Surely a % is a %. If you earn more, you will pay more. Why should someone on 100k have to pay a higher % than someone on 30K? What is "fair" about that? Tax policy should be designed to bring the most money in, not punish people for earning more. As the Thatcher Government showed, you can lower taxes for the higher paid and generate more money into the revenue. They would merge tax and NI and also take the lowest paid out of tax altogether.

What you appear to be saying is that the people who don't agree with you , don't understand. That although , the majority would vote for withdrawal , they aren't sophisticated enough to understand the consequences. What other elections do you think us plebs should be barred from, local ones? What about the general election, how can we have a vote we may vote for someone you don't consider worthy . This democracy lark is a pain in the balls isn't it, much easier to let clever people like you tell us how to vote . Personally I think your argument for staying in the EU is a load of pony, I think you've been brainwashed by liars and con men. But that's really beside the point. The British people should have their say,and they have been denied it too long.

It should be up to the people to decide, not you, not me, not Nigel Farage and certainly not Ken Clarke. All I hear from the Establishment is how wonderful Europe is, how they are winning the argument, how business is for it. It therefore should be easy to convince the British people, so they should put it to them. They wont of course, never in a month of Sundays.

I think you're getting confused there Pap, that's the exact policy of the Tory party. UKIP's policy is clear, leave the EU.

So you can call UKIP the "nasty party", call their policies xenophobic but nobody can mention the Lib/Dems. Typical Lib/Dem response, shut down the discussion as we know best. I think if you read through the thread there are plenty of examples of people defending UKIP, but surely one of the reasons people are voting for them is the policies of the Establishment parties. Seems rather strange that discussing those Establishment policies should not be posted.

These were my 2, got me into their great music and then everything else I liked flowed from there. If John Lennon said he liked someone, BB King for example, I would check it out. Leon Russell played on Georg's solo stuff so I started checking him out. For me all my music leads back to these 2 albums.

Complete and utter nonsense. Every party has measures to control immigaration, the Lib/Dems even had the crazy policy of regional caps at the last election. How Nazi like is that, immigrants can only work in certain areas of the country. What were they going to have, check points to check peoples papers? "you do not have a permit to delivery this Pizza in this area Pawel" Gordon Brown promised "British jobs for British workers" . The Lib/Dems are a busted flush, they have been found out. People seem to forget, that in an election against Gordon Brown, they actually lost seats. The only reason they got into power was by abandoning their principles in a mad rush for the ministerial limos. They try to be all things to all men, they make promises they have no intention of keeping and they are a bunch of hypocrites. I find it breath taking that they can accuse UKIP of being homophobic when they ran the most disgracefully homophobic by-election in living memory, despite the fact that their candidate was in the closet all along. That pompous ass Lord Oakshot was on Any Questions Friday, summing up exactly what they're like, "please call me Matthew not Lord" (well don't accept the ****ing tittle then, stand for election) and " I've never believed in referendums, they are a "a device for despots and dictators", before going on to brag about his role in calling the EEC in/out one as Woy Jenkins' special advisor. I also wondered how such an important Lib/dem figure was able to keep so quiet over his anti referendum stance during the Lib/Dem inspired AV vote one. If there is any nasty party in politics it's the Lib/Dems. They will do anything, say anything for a bit of personal power. They will not be able to fool the British public again, and I look forward to them returning to their 1970's position of a fringe party with a handful of MP's (only without the Thorpe, Cyril Smith issues).

Well I'm certainly not trolling and totally disagree with you. He has not been fantastic and if he's central to our play then I begin to worry. Defensively he's been poor, his shouting is poor , 80% of the time he appears to be using a medicine ball to shoot with. Corners are pretty average, and he dives a lot. He has some good touches and when we're on top can look good, but he ain't as good as some on here believe . I realise this is an hanging offense on here, but in my opinion he's an average premiership player who may get better with experience. Nothing more,nothing less. Our lack of goals lately is a worry. How many have the centre halves got , when was the last time we looked like heading a corner towards goal, let alone scoring from one. Its no good blaming Lambert, others need to chip in.

I don't see how Chelsea winning is anything other than good news for villa. Who would they rather play a Chelsea needing points to qualify for champions league or a Chelsea already done so. Although I assume this wonderful % system will factor in benetiz resting players.

The guys starting it and keeping it going were a few rows in front of me. Pretty decent effort, certainly added to my enjoyment despite being a "WW1 veteran". Don't know why people are moaning about owts, its ours and its great. Spurs hardly sung it yesterday , because they know its ours. Lets prove it to stoke next home game. If we need to stop any song its "we sing our own songs". Bit pathetic when we then launch into the Fernando Torres one , the lallana makes messi look.shiete and Gaston's one.

I guess its just my way of proving that the people ridiculing us "flapers" were talking complete and utter pony.

You mean the "flap" where I predicted we'd lose to spurs,villa would beat Sunderland and Norwich ,and Wigan would beat wba, that " flap"? No, it can't be because wba are too good for Wigan, villa are dog shiete and I've more chance of seeing lord lucan giving Elvis a blow job than that happenening. The 8 results I predicted were a bit more realistic than the ones you've just posted. Particularly when 50% have come in. Please could you advise when im allowed to flap, is it Tuesday after Wigan beat Swansea.

We sent our older 2 to the local comprehensive as it was ok. We then moved and the local is dire, the one our older 2 went to is oversubscribed and they left a number of years previously so we couldn't send number 3 there. Now our 3rd one is at Grammar I regret not making the older 2 take the test as I was genuinely surprised at how inclusive and diverse the Grammar school is. Previously I was 50/50 about Grammars, but now having seen one at close hand, I'm 100% in favour. Now I understand that it maybe a good one and also understand that there are some fantastic comprehensives, but the choice of having a Grammar school is one I would highly recommend. I'm just hoping our youngest also gets the chance to go. People go on about the Comprehensive system and about mixing with diverse people, but it isn't a pure form of comprehensive that we have. Surely the very meaning of comprehensive schools is that everybody goes there from the local area. However, choice has meant that even this "fair" system can be skewed by the middle classes. Houses in the top schools catchment area carry a premium the poor cant afford. Faith schools further dilute the comprehensive ethics, my mate sent his kid to Catholic school and the vicar announces every year to a packed congregation "it's schools choice time", as his ranks are temporary filled by people wanting his signature to prove regular church going. Even the Grammar schools that I support are skewed from the poor, with the rich going private until 11, and the middle classes using private tuition (we used neither). I am sure we could get a system in place which measured kids potential and IQ, which combined with a test could be used as an entrance criteria for a Grammar school, if the parents wanted to send the kid there. The problem in the past was not the Grammar Schools, but the Secondary moderns. Instead of fixing them, they abolished the best route poor kids had to move up the social scale. All parties are in favour of "choice", unless that "choice" includes the Grammar option.

I felt that Bale should have been shown down the line a bit before the goal and not be allowed to come onto his left foot. The way Guly was playing defensively he may have made it a bit more awkward for him. He did give away quite a few fouls and I have a feeling he would have clumsily stopped Bale by giving away a free kick (admittedly in a dangerous position). Overall after the lack of match time, Guly played really well. Had Gaston put in a performance like that after weeks out, some posters would be creaming their pants.