Jump to content

Boris Johnson and the death of the United Kingdom as we know it.


SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election  

133 members have voted

  1. 1. SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election

    • Conservatives
      31
    • Labour
      27
    • Liberals
      49
    • UKIP
      1
    • Green
      14
    • Brexit
      8
    • Change UK
      0
    • Other
      3


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Tories want to hear about fracking, not renewables. Leave that to the sandal wearers. 

Top trolling. I tilt my hat to you. 

4 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

As if having bloody huge windmills everywhere isn't fucking up the environment in a different way.

I agree with Timmy for once, and see a future for Hydrogen as a viable alternative to battery power. Certainly the Japanese seem to be putting their research and development that way. But in other areas, whereas wind power can play a part, the solution will have to involve a mix of several alternatives, like wave, tide, solar and water power generation.

Agree, but judged against the current alternatives I’d rather deal with wind turbines than spent nuclear fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

 And won't the installation of them in itself cause considerable damage to the seabed?

Wind farms are not usually licensed for anywhere which is ecologically sensitive. 

There is some disturbance but quite quickly the area recovers to better than before. Parts of the North Sea are 'threshed' by fishing boats (steel bar dragged across the bottom ) up to seven times a year. It destroys everything. Consequently a lot of the seabed is pretty featureless mud, sand or gravel with low biodiversity, which is why artificial reefs are sometimes created using concrete blocks or sunken ships. So physically putting concrete bases for turbines on the seabed can be beneficial to marine life. Weed, seagrass, barnacles and clams all need something to cling to. If you have the weed and seagrass you have the habitat juvenile fish need to shelter in. But the biggest benefit is the fishing exclusion zone it creates - essentially a marine protected area.  Two of the most pristine, biodiverse marine areas in the UK are off the west coast of Scotland where the MoD have had an underwater weapons testing area since WW2 where all fishing is excluded. Similarly around the oil rigs in the North Sea, many of which have been there since the 1970s.    

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-north-sea-oil-wanes-removing-abandoned-rigs-stirs-controversy

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

So much for the reset after Cummings departure. Can’t ever bring himself to do the right thing over Patel and shows again just has contempt for the rest of us. Just like his little hero over in the US. Part of me would love Biden to come out and say bollocks to the ‘special relationship’ I can’t trust this Buffon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OUTRAGE! At pay freezes for public sector workers! Dear me, join the club, we had all payrises suspended this year and it's looking like they will be next year too. My heart bleeds for these poor public sector workers having to cope with the same as the rest of us.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

OUTRAGE! At pay freezes for public sector workers! Dear me, join the club, we had all payrises suspended this year and it's looking like they will be next year too. My heart bleeds for these poor public sector workers having to cope with the same as the rest of us.

As one of the poor public sector people who went to work every day while half the nation sat at home getting paid I'm a bit miffed although our pay rises are normally so meagre anyway it probably doesn't make much difference!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Turkish said:

OUTRAGE! At pay freezes for public sector workers! Dear me, join the club, we had all payrises suspended this year and it's looking like they will be next year too. My heart bleeds for these poor public sector workers having to cope with the same as the rest of us.

Yeah how do your pay rises since 2008 compare with the public sector? I expect favourably,  Make the care and social workers and the bin men pay for all these poor self employed who been earning loads but God forbid they have any fallow months.

I know people who can’t believe how much they got and don’t even think they should have. These fckers in govt can borrow when they want and when they don’t want they say we need to cut our cloth and all the mugs swallow it and fall in line. No magic money tree eh

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Cat said:

As one of the poor public sector people who went to work every day while half the nation sat at home getting paid I'm a bit miffed although our pay rises are normally so meagre anyway it probably doesn't make much difference!

You have my sympathies. Although I expect you may not be hit too hard if inflation hangs steady. 
I knew it woudl not be long before all those who benefitted from the scheme will be screaming they don’t want to pay higher taxes for those public services that kept the country going.

Edited by whelk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember ever getting a pay increase above 3%. Plus we never get bonuses. 

Still, as long as our pay freeze means the Government can spunk billions on crappy track and trace, invisible PPE and waste god knows how much on vanity projects like the garden bridge it's alright.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Cat said:

I don't remember ever getting a pay increase above 3%. Plus we never get bonuses. 

Still, as long as our pay freeze means the Government can spunk billions on crappy track and trace, invisible PPE and waste god knows how much on vanity projects like the garden bridge it's alright.

I sure that Spanish middle man fella fully deserved his £20m cut what with being smart and having connections and all. We must reward performance

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah how do your pay rises since 2008 compare with the public sector? I expect favourably,  Make the care and social workers and the bin men pay for all these poor self employed who been earning loads but God forbid they have any fallow months.

I know people who can’t believe how much they got and don’t even think they should have. These fckers in govt can borrow when they want and when they don’t want they say we need to cut our cloth and all the mugs swallow it and fall in line. No magic money tree eh

Just for doing the job they are probably comparable actually, a typical pay rise in my company is about 2-3% but you have to achieve thresholds in your annual performance review to qualify they dont just give them because you work there, if you class as did not achieve objectives you get FA. I have had big pay rises though and these have been been due to promotions or taking on extra responsibility not just because i turn up everyday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Cat said:

As one of the poor public sector people who went to work every day while half the nation sat at home getting paid I'm a bit miffed although our pay rises are normally so meagre anyway it probably doesn't make much difference!

As one of those people that was never more busy than during lockdown helping enable people to work and learn from home at incredibly short notice i'm pretty miffed i probably wont get one either, but such is life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still yet to see any good argument against a Furlough tax. In hindsight it was a good scheme, and if it helped people keep their jobs, then why shouldn’t they contribute more towards the cost of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I’m still yet to see any good argument against a Furlough tax. In hindsight it was a good scheme, and if it helped people keep their jobs, then why shouldn’t they contribute more towards the cost of it?

Would it just apply to those that were furloughed, so those of us that continued to work wouldn't have to pay??

What about those that were furloughed but then lost their jobs, do they have to pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Would it just apply to those that were furloughed, so those of us that continued to work wouldn't have to pay??

What about those that were furloughed but then lost their jobs, do they have to pay?

Just those that were furloughed and retain their job. A bit like the student tax myself and many others pay. Charge a % based on earnings? 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I’m still yet to see any good argument against a Furlough tax. In hindsight it was a good scheme, and if it helped people keep their jobs, then why shouldn’t they contribute more towards the cost of it?

Some much for all in it together. The crying about tax is starting already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Some much for all in it together. The crying about tax is starting already.

This is the point though. This would mean we are all in it together, otherwise who else is going to pay for it? 
 

I’d love them to go after the massive tax dodgers and not to have wasted billions on fuck up after fuck up, but it’s not going to happen. We are all going to suffer, make no mistake about that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LGTL said:

This is the point though. This would mean we are all in it together, otherwise who else is going to pay for it? 
 

I’d love them to go after the massive tax dodgers and not to have wasted billions on fuck up after fuck up, but it’s not going to happen. We are all going to suffer, make no mistake about that. 

We’re all going to pay for it, we’re just going to pay a bit more tax, no big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, aintforever said:

We’re all going to pay for it, we’re just going to pay a bit more tax, no big deal.

Perhaps we should spend a bit less as well. 
 

It won’t be me paying for it anyway. The can will be kicked so far down the road, I’ll be long gone  by the time another Thatcher starts to sort it out properly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LGTL said:

This is the point though. This would mean we are all in it together, otherwise who else is going to pay for it? 
 

It would be disproportianate to increase the taxes of those on minimum / living wage, which let's face it are the majority of workers that make up the two industries that have been hit the hardest during this (retail and hospitality).

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It would be disproportianate to increase the taxes of those on minimum / living wage, which let's face it are the majority of workers that make up the two industries that have been hit the hardest during this (retail and hospitality).

There will probably quite a few volunteers like aintforever who are more than happy to pay more tax so go to them first, then those who benefited from furlough, then everyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Stop HS2. Stick a couple of pence on income tax. And amend Capital Gains tax.

oh and how about an online sales tax. I think Jeff could handle it.

And fuck off all these Capita, SERCO, Deloitte contracts and sweeteners and bring it back in house. Absolute BS that they run anything efficiently as seen in this pandemic. 

Edited by whelk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, whelk said:

 Stop HS2. Stick a couple of pence on income tax. And amend Capital Gains tax.

oh and how about an online sales tax. I think Jeff could handle it.

And fuck off all these Capita, SERCO, Deloitte contracts and sweeteners and bring it back in house. Absolute BS that they run anything efficiently as seen in this pandemic. 

Yep to all of that. HS2 was always a show pony, and now I can't see any justification. CGT bound to come up to income tax levels, and reliefs cut it not abolished. Income tax possibly leave alone until higher rate, but a lower threshold to catch more. However you cut it, we're a bit fucked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Turkish said:

There will probably quite a few volunteers like aintforever who are more than happy to pay more tax so go to them first, then those who benefited from furlough, then everyone else.

I wasn’t volunteering, I was speaking on behalf of everyone lucky enough to still have an income. I’m not going to pay more just because tight arses like you are not man enough to chip in and help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/10/2020 at 18:55, Plastic said:

Top trolling. I tilt my hat to you. 

Agree, but judged against the current alternatives I’d rather deal with wind turbines than spent nuclear fuel.

‘Producing energy from renewable resources is not the answer to meeting energy demand.’ How far do you agree? Cambridge International Geography A Level exam question i set for one of the students I tutor. Be interesting to see what people think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I wasn’t volunteering, I was speaking on behalf of everyone lucky enough to still have an income. I’m not going to pay more just because tight arses like you are not man enough to chip in and help.

LOL, so angry. Not a question of being man enough, You think we’ll have a choice? But if boasting about how happy you are about it makes you feel superior human crack on. 

Edited by Turkish
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Turkish said:

LOL, so angry. Not a question of being man enough, You think we’ll have a choice? But if boasting about how happy you are about it makes you feel superior human crack on. 

I wasn’t boasting or am not particularly happy about the situation, I just don’t have an issue with helping out by paying more tax. It’s pot luck as to wether you’ve been able to from home, had to be furloughed, or been made redundant - I don’t see it as fair to make certain people foot the bill when we are supposedly to be all in it together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I'd like to pay higher tax unless there's some sort of guarantee it isn't wasted on a bunch of shite by this government.

I otherwise agree with the concept. Most countries who pay higher tax have better social services, are happier and end up with a better standard of living. But they probably also don't have complete bell ends running their country like we do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, aintforever said:

 I don’t see it as fair to make certain people foot the bill when we are supposedly to be all in it together.

The people footing the vast vast majority of the bill will be the richest. They’ve never paid so much in tax and will continue to do so. I’m sure the people that fit  your definition of “certain people” , won’t be contributing very much at all. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The people footing the vast vast majority of the bill will be the richest. They’ve never paid so much in tax and will continue to do so. I’m sure the people that fit  your definition of “certain people” , won’t be contributing very much at all. 

Don't most of the really rich people take advantage of the ridiculous tax rules which allow them to transfer money through a complex network of offshore accounts and therefore avoid paying the full rate? Or is that just people like Rees-Mogg and his cronies? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Cat said:

Don't most of the really rich people take advantage of the ridiculous tax rules which allow them to transfer money through a complex network of offshore accounts and therefore avoid paying the full rate? Or is that just people like Rees-Mogg and his cronies? 

The highest 1% of income taxpayers account for 27% of all income tax. In 1978, before the great lady it was 11%. 
 

43% of working age adults pay £0 income tax a year,  & the bottom 50% of the 57%,   account for less than 10% of income tax revenues. 
 

It’s pretty obvious who is going to foot the bill, it’s the people you & other lefties love to attack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The highest 1% of income taxpayers account for 27% of all income tax. In 1978, before the great lady it was 11%. 
 

43% of working age adults pay £0 income tax a year,  & the bottom 50% of the 57%,   account for less than 10% of income tax revenues. 
 

It’s pretty obvious who is going to foot the bill, it’s the people you & other lefties love to attack. 

Why should we read your guff when you won't have courtesy of returning the favour? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The highest 1% of income taxpayers account for 27% of all income tax. In 1978, before the great lady it was 11%. 
 

The rich  have got much richer and society much more unequal.  Housing has become unaffordable even for many people in work. Still fuck em eh? as long as the people you tug your forelock to are okay. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, buctootim said:

The rich  have got much richer and society much more unequal.  

That’s the problem with lefties like you, obsessed with equality. You’d rather everyone was equally poor, than some richer than others. As the great lady said, you don’t make the poor richer, by making the rich poorer.
 

China is far far more unequal than its ever been, is that a good thing or a bad thing? By your measure, it was better when nearly everyone was dirt poor, because it was a more equal society.
 

So what if the rich have got richer. The vast majority of them have earnt it and the average man now has a lifestyle way beyond what he did in the 1970’s. Society is not perfect and they’ll always be people falling between the cracks, it’s how Governments take care of these people that really matters, not how they contain and shackle the rich. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That’s the problem with lefties like you, obsessed with equality. You’d rather everyone was equally poor, than some richer than others. As the great lady said, you don’t make the poor richer, by making the rich poorer.
 

China is far far more unequal than its ever been, is that a good thing or a bad thing? By your measure, it was better when nearly everyone was dirt poor, because it was a more equal society.
 

So what if the rich have got richer. The vast majority of them have earnt it and the average man now has a lifestyle way beyond what he did in the 1970’s. Society is not perfect and they’ll always be people falling between the cracks, it’s how Governments take care of these people that really matters, not how they contain and shackle the rich. 
 

 

 

I thought you'd be upset Thatcher's legacy is being turned on its head. Instead of a property owning democracy rewarding individual effort it how rewards corporatism and the wealthy at the expense of the 98%

1. Its harder to get on the housing ladder. In 1965 the average age of first home purchase was 23. Now its 34. 

2. Housing is being concentrated into fewer hands, a trend not seen since the industrial revolution. In  2003 there were 5 million homes owned by people under 45. In 2017 it had dropped by 32% to 3.45m. By contrast private renting increased from 1.05m households to 2.55m  

3.  Average household debt is up from 32% of income in 1997 to 148% in 2019.

 

 

 

Edited by buctootim
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, buctootim said:

 

I thought you'd be upset Thatcher's legacy is being turned on its head. Instead of a property owning democracy rewarding individual effort it how rewards corporatism and the wealthy at the expense of the 98%

1. Its harder to get on the housing ladder. In 1965 the average age of first home purchase was 23. Now its 34. 

2. Housing is being concentrated into fewer hands, a trend not seen since the industrial revolution. In  2003 there were 5 million homes owned by people under 45. In 2017 it had dropped by 32% to 3.45m. By contrast private renting increased from 1.05m households to 2.55m  

3.  Average household debt is up from 32% of income in 1997 to 148% in 2019.

 

 

 

Since the great lady all we’ve had is a string of europhile pinkos. Major, Blair & Cameron are the main culprits and they’re in the same bag as yourself. Apart from May, it’s been vote blue or red, get pink.

 

Who do you think has rewarded corporatism and the wealthy, people with pretty much the same politics as you, that’s who. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more wealthy than my father and that is what he wanted. My son will eventually be more wealthy than me and that is what i want. It is called progress, ambition and parental love.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rooney said:

I was more wealthy than my father and that is what he wanted. My son will eventually be more wealthy than me and that is what i want. It is called progress, ambition and parental love.

That was the social contract. it's not now.  The focus has switched away from rewarding work to rewarding inheritance and holding assets

 

Edited by buctootim
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whelk said:

They've gone balls out on that petition asking for a 10% payrise which is  completely ludicrous.

I might start one asking for 20% payrises for all Saints season ticket holders who work in the public sector. See how much of a Southampton supporter Sunak really is. If he was a true fan he'd like nothing more than giving me a hefty payrise while the Pompey woman I manage with gets nothing.

Edited by The Cat
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 you don’t make the poor richer, by making the rich poorer.
 

 

Of course you can to an extent, that's what tax has been doing for ages. At any one time there is only ever a finite amount of money - if a few people have most of it then most people will have less, that's simple maths.

Every penny Jeff Bezos has made he has taken from someone else, it hasn't appeared out of thin air by magic. If he has £180 Billion sat in his bank it's £180 billion that is not in other people's. The same amount of money shared out would mean 180,000 millionaires.

Edited by aintforever
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aintforever said:

Of course you can to an extent, that's what tax has been doing for ages. At any one time there is only ever a finite amount of money - if a few people have most of it then most people will have less, that's simple maths.

Every penny Jeff Bezos has made he has taken from someone else, it hasn't appeared out of thin air by magic. If he has £180 Billion sat in his bank it's £180 billion that is not in other people's. The same amount of money shared out would mean 180,000 millionaires.

Do you really think he has that amount of cash sitting in a bank?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})