sadoldgit

Indeed. You could insist on every piece of political party propaganda having to be fact checked by an independent body before release, but how do you control stuff released further down the food chain? There will always be stuff leaking out, I suppose it is then a question of ensuring anything inappropriate is taken down asap. As for abuse, anything that is illegal or that you couldn’t get away with saying to someone’s face should not be there. It’s a big job policing things like Instagram or Facebook. Do you just rely on people reporting abuse or do you police every thread as a responsible operator? I am on three local village FB groups. One is very small and, probably because of that, is easily policed, not that it needs it. The 2 others cover much bigger village areas and some of the abuse that gets thrown around on there is dreadful. The admin seem to let most things go and you have to wonder if bricks get thrown through windows as many of these people seem to live within a few hundred yards of each other. FB never step in. Maybe no one has ever complained but there should be a level of behaviour that becomes unacceptable to set standards and chat groups shut down if they constantly over step the mark. If you provide a social media platform for expression, you must ultimately be responsible for what happens on it.

I know, it’s crazy isn’t it? A guy I grew up with when I was a nipper but haven’t seen since 1964 has reconnected with me on Facebook. He is very pro Corbyn and, as you would expect, posts a lot of anti Johnson stuff. Strangely though he posts a lot more anti LibDem stuff. Tactically I don’t get it at all.

It’s not me you need to worry about Wes, it’s the hundreds of thousands of other floating voters out there

Wouldn’t it be great to see a complete overhaul of the electoral system here and a move away from the archaic Palace of Westminster into a more suitable and modern debating chamber? It will never happen though. We are and always will be slaves to our past. That’s why you have to laugh at the electioneering slogan “Unleash our potential.” The only thing we are good at is living in the past.

Where have I said a punitive rate of tax? I have just said that it is not unreasonable for them to pay a higher rate (over a certain threshold of course). I don’t think any reasonable person could argue against that given the number of people living below the poverty line in this country.

I should add...I know we often say that debate on here is pointless as no one will ever change their minds. However, I class myself as a floating voter since being let down by the LibDems allowing the Conservatives into power 9 years ago and the more I read here from the Tory supporters the more it makes me want to vote Labour.

I agree. I certainly don’t want to see the internet banned but there clearly needs to be a stronger regulation of the spread of lies/misinformation and greater control of abuse on social media.

I think that your last point sums the situation up perfectly. Money isn’t created in a vacuum and most people who accumulate a great amount of it do so thanks to others in society. Duckie mentioned Paul McCartney. He made a vast fortune from being able to write and perform popular music. That fortune came from those who paid to hear it. Most of us don’t have a gift that allows to makes vast quantities of money from doing something that most others can’t. Nothing wrong with that, but in a caring society it is not unreasonable to expect those with plenty to pay a bit more to help those who dont have so much to get by. That way we all benefit. Footballers in the Premiership earn crazy amounts of money for doing something most of us would do for nothing. Many of the people who help to pay their wages rely on food banks. How can that be right in what we are told is the 5th biggest economy on the planet? What is so wrong about closing tax loopholes so that big corporations have to pay the correct amount of tax in the countries in which they make their money? No one is suggesting that we go back to the dark days when tax rates were ridiculously high, but a person paying the same rate of tax who earns £15,000 a year as, say, someone who earns £70,000 a year is non-sensical and grossly unfair. What happens when we get to the point when people stop paying for SKY and stop going to football matches because they can longer afford it? Multiply that across the field of consumerism and a lot of very rich people will find that they are no longer very rich. Thatcher got it completely wrong and you certainly do not help the poor by making the rich richer.

Surely a “fair” system would involve paying what you can reasonably afford given your circumstances? As for what the Great British public think, if they think like you and Wes the rest of us are screwed.

That wasn’t the question. As usual you use deflection to deal with issues you find awkward. In answer to your question though, I see those Labour candidates all the time in the media. There was been no sign of Rees-Mogg since he made those dreadful comments about the Grenfell Tower victims.

“Walk” is the problem.

It still wasn’t an official announcement from the club. However, things change. Some things change. People change their minds. Believe things when they happen and you won’t be disappointed, unless you don’t like the announcement of course!

The rich employ people who advise them how to pay less tax. I don’t resent rich people in the least. I resent super rich people who feel that they are somehow more entitled just because they have more money. You seem to think that it is okay to have a section of society that have more money than they could ever spend when we have people who can’t feed their families through no fault of their own. You sound just as heartless as the people you vote for. I hope that you never have to try and claim Universal Credit.

What has happened to Jacob Rees-Mogg? Have they locked him away in a basement until after the election?

Just how much money does a billionaire need? How can you justify not taxing the obscenely rich a bit more when we have thousands sleeping on the streets and food banks in every town? How can you justify the 9 years of austerity that has brought us to this? It would be fine if we were all in it together, but your Party chose to visit the pain on the very people who could afford it the least.

People who believe in and want to work for a fairer society for everybody. What utter, utter bastards!

If you are happy that these tyrants and idiots have a platform that is your choice. Why do we have to have both? Why can’t we just have the good? Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the Conservatives taking the moral high ground and not feed us bull**** in their campaign for instance?

Meanwhile you have the amazingly gifted Chris Grayling who has managed to **** up in every job he has had. People in glass houses etc.

Not that you would have known.

That would be wonderful, unfortunately George Orwell was right though.

Given how important the 3 points were, that equaliser deep into extra time must have been a real kick in the stomach moment.

Apparently they also made up the audience according to seats in Parliament so there were very few LibDem supporters and more Brexiteers than remainers. Call me old fashioned but if you want fair conditions to run a debate of this magnitude surely you divide the audience up equally to ensure a level playing ground for all of the speakers?

We will have to agree to disagree and although I am no fan of Diane Abbot I would still rather see her on the front bench than the deeply unpleasant Priti Patel.

But the opinion polls tell us that we could have a Government with Johnson, Gove, Patel, Raab etc. How is that any better?

I see. Makes sense to announce it all together if that is the case.