The Conservative Party and DUP = racist, homophobic, sexist, HYPOCRISY!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jimbo1234
Well come on hun, how are the Labours party policies progressive? 
Clearly you need to be more familiar with a payslip and what National Insurance is
But heck, Labour voters don't need to know facts or have experience!
Clearly you need to be more familiar with a payslip and what National Insurance is
But heck, Labour voters don't need to know facts or have experience!
If you expect me to teach you then you must've gone crazy
bye bye
Original post by Jimbo1234
So you were totally wrong, didn't know what national insurance was (you're in for a horrific shock when/if you start working), and rather than saying "oh that's interesting and that changes things", you just rant.
Well, good to see our education system promotes analytic thinking
If rich people left the UK we would be crippled. NHS? Gone. Benefits? Gone. Military forces? Gone. Yeah, looks like jealousy got you really far!
The issue is not the rich, but the hundreds of billions wasted on benefits and the NHS. If they were modernised then you could get better services for half the prices and use the ~£120 billion of savings to fix every problem in the UK.
But that solution took actual research and thought rather than "**** the rich!" like all you bitter Labour supporters.
So you were totally wrong, didn't know what national insurance was (you're in for a horrific shock when/if you start working), and rather than saying "oh that's interesting and that changes things", you just rant.
Well, good to see our education system promotes analytic thinking
If rich people left the UK we would be crippled. NHS? Gone. Benefits? Gone. Military forces? Gone. Yeah, looks like jealousy got you really far!
The issue is not the rich, but the hundreds of billions wasted on benefits and the NHS. If they were modernised then you could get better services for half the prices and use the ~£120 billion of savings to fix every problem in the UK.
But that solution took actual research and thought rather than "**** the rich!" like all you bitter Labour supporters.
I'm perfectly aware of what National Insurance is, but your post appeared to be referring to income tax so I addressed that. And as for the suggestion of ranting, I was merely addressing your spurious point that taxation is "theft".
It's interesting that you assume that a) pointing out that rich people stay in the country because they're aware of the alternative means I'm somehow jealous and b) that I must be from a low income household in order to make said point.
I agree that there are ongoing issues with how money is spent in services like the NHS, but cutting welfare is the exact opposite of the solution. The money provided by benefits is what allows a massive number of people to maintain a half decent quality of life (if that, even, for many). Take that away and all you get is a more unhealthy population, fewer people able to work, and even more pressure in the NHS and the benefits system. But that's beside the actual point, which is that wanting good quality public services does mean having to accept a relatively high level of taxation (although incidentally, even the new top tax band proposed by Corbyn is still 10% lower than the top rate in places like Sweden).
Original post by missedhit
If you expect me to teach you then you must've gone crazy bye bye
bye byeSo I say that the policies are from the 70's, you deny it, I ask for proof....and then you say "nah!" LOL
Why did you even post? You just go into complete lockdown when someone disagrees with you!
Original post by Beth_H
I'm perfectly aware of what National Insurance is, but your post appeared to be referring to income tax so I addressed that. And as for the suggestion of ranting, I was merely addressing your spurious point that taxation is "theft".
It's interesting that you assume that a) pointing out that rich people stay in the country because they're aware of the alternative means I'm somehow jealous and b) that I must be from a low income household in order to make said point.
I agree that there are ongoing issues with how money is spent in services like the NHS, but cutting welfare is the exact opposite of the solution. The money provided by benefits is what allows a massive number of people to maintain a half decent quality of life (if that, even, for many). Take that away and all you get is a more unhealthy population, fewer people able to work, and even more pressure in the NHS and the benefits system. But that's beside the actual point, which is that wanting good quality public services does mean having to accept a relatively high level of taxation (although incidentally, even the new top tax band proposed by Corbyn is still 10% lower than the top rate in places like Sweden).
It's interesting that you assume that a) pointing out that rich people stay in the country because they're aware of the alternative means I'm somehow jealous and b) that I must be from a low income household in order to make said point.
I agree that there are ongoing issues with how money is spent in services like the NHS, but cutting welfare is the exact opposite of the solution. The money provided by benefits is what allows a massive number of people to maintain a half decent quality of life (if that, even, for many). Take that away and all you get is a more unhealthy population, fewer people able to work, and even more pressure in the NHS and the benefits system. But that's beside the actual point, which is that wanting good quality public services does mean having to accept a relatively high level of taxation (although incidentally, even the new top tax band proposed by Corbyn is still 10% lower than the top rate in places like Sweden).
I'm just highlighting the point that many folks like yourself think they are well informed and make very serious accusations when sadly you are very far from being informed.
Now the info is out there on the net but so few people choose to look at it and school won't teach you anything of use (lets teach you about plants rather than how the economy works or politics
). This is why I never jump to any conclusions unless I've done a ton of my own research (that means looking at IMF reports, ONS reports etc as news articles are nearly always biased).Well here is my idea about benefits. Slash it in half, and make real jobs from the money saved.
The issue that this would then highlight is that benefits has bred a large proportion of people who do not want to work. I know and have lived with these people so this isn't some daily mail fantasy but the sad truth. You then have tax credits and family allowance, both of which shouldn't be paid at all. if one job isn't enough....get two. That is what everyone else does/did. And we don't need more people so if you can't afford kids then don't have them - contraception is free for a reason.
As for the NHS - get in PWC or Deloitte etc and force major reform e.g. use the emails, stop annotation of letters, ban agency nurses, replace most GP clinics with specialist clinics. Those few changes alone would save a few 10's of billions and that is just scratching the surface.
All of that seems to simple? Sadly it isn't, just no politician has the balls to shake up the system. The Tories want to plod no like everything is fine, and Labour want to just blame the rich. Neither actually wants a solution...
As for taxation - go abroad. Look at what every other country offers. The UK has slipped so far behind that even Eastern block countries now have better infrastructure than us and their taxes are extremely low. The UK has just hemorrhaged hundreds of billions over the last 2 decades and now we're kind of ****ed.
Original post by L i b
Really? When he was leader, Peter Robinson released a letter from Gordon Brown himself seeking their support. Even Caroline Flint has acknowledged today that "Gordon Brown sought deals with the DUP". This couldn't get any higher in the Labour Party, and yet did you care back then
Original post by L i b
I think there are bad eggs in each party, but let's not forget that it was Conservative governments who brought in a great amount of legislation that addressed these issues.
Original post by L i b
1. It is in the nature of agreements with other parties that you are doing deals with people you disagree with.
Original post by L i b
2. The idea that the DUP are some sort of ludicrous pantomime villain is nonsense. You accuse them of sexism for example, despite having a woman leader: one of three leaders since the party was created, while ignoring that the Labour Party has had (to my rough count) 21 leaders - none of which have ever been female.
Lol. You do know you can find plenty of Black people in history that supported racist policies towards Black people, right? You are aware of that fact, right? If so, you are then fully aware that a human being can be a member of a social group but still support policies that discriminate them. I am Black British, trust me when I say I know plenty of Black people who support ideologies that would discriminate them. Arlene Foster is a woman who wants to treat other women unequally. Just because you share the same a member of the social group that is treated unequal does not stop you from being a bigot towards that group. Ask Ben Carson, the Republican Presidential candidate who supported racist attitudes towards Black Americans.
Put it this way. Being gay does not stop you from being homophobic being supportive of lgbt rights stop you from being homophobic.
I have actually respected some of your comments in the past on this board to be honest, you make some good points normally. Despite us being from different political 'tribes'. But come on, thinking a Woman cannot be sexist? Thinking the DUP having a female as a leader absolves them from having policies that are sexist? come on. You can do much better.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Reformed2010
But they didn't flee in droves when Labour decided to pursue such a pact. Do you not see the issue there? I, for one, don't think it'll make the slightest electoral difference - and above all, I think it's rank hypocrisy to hear people in the Labour movement criticise doing exactly what they did.
Moreover, if we're going to get into moral values, Jeremy Corbyn's connections with Hamas, with the IRA and so on - not to mention his allies lying for him about it in an attempt to brush it all under the rug - have been truly appalling. Yet it appears that many otherwise decent Labour people are willing to endorse him as Prime Minister? I have a problem with that.
Let's not forget the leader of the DUP is a victim of the very terrorism that Jeremy Corbyn was supporting back in the 1970s: her school bus was bombed while she was on it, and her father - a police officer - was shot in the head by the IRA.
Sorry, I thought it was Labour that rid the UK of Section 28 that attacked LGBT people. I thought it was Labour that brought about the peace process between Catholics and Protestants. I thought it was Labour who introduced the racial equality act. That introduced gender equal pay. I'm sorry I thought it was Labour that saved Cameron with the majority votes needed when same-sex marriage was introduced in Parliament. Seriously, you can lie to yourself all you damn like. The Tory party have been sluggish and resisted social liberalisation at every single stage since I have been alive.
The Conservatives introduced same-sex marriage while Labour had failed. The Conservatives outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. To try to call a party with two gay cabinet ministers and a gay leader in one of the constituent parts of the UK homophobic is frankly ridiculous.
We can all look to political parties' pasts and find objectionable things. Let's not forget the Labour Party was founded by an out-and-out racist - Keir Hardie - who wanted to end all immigration and made absolutely vile comments about certain ethnic groups.
They are openly sectarian, racist, homophobic and share links with terrorist.
The DUP do not have links with terrorist organisations. I'd also like to see examples of the party being institutionally sectarian or racist. Indeed, I know fine well that there are Roman Catholics who vote DUP - and the DUP have reached out to them.
They have elected politicians that say they want 'ethnics out' of the UK in 2016.
Well, hold on - when we have to resort to absolute nonsense, I think the case is probably a bit weak. You're referring to Sammy Wilson who appeared to agree with a comment made by a member of the public who was talking about both leaving the EU and getting the "ethnics out". The DUP immediately disassociated itself from that and Wilson said specifically that he did not agree with the member of the public's view.
They refuse to give lgbt people equal rights by denying same-sex marriage and call them sinners, and they are religious fundamentalist who ignore science.
If you're going to have a go at everyone who doesn't like same-sex marriage or every party that has a creationist or two within its ranks, you're going to have a fairly long list.
Arlene Foster is a woman who wants to treat other women unequally.
Again, a fairly peculiar claim.
But come on, thinking a Woman cannot be sexist?
I'm asking you to substantiate the claim that Arlene Foster is somehow sexist against women, because I think it is a very odd one to make.
I'm anti-abortion, I don't understand why you have that emboldened along with those horrible labels.
Original post by L i b
But they didn't flee in droves when Labour decided to pursue such a pact. Do you not see the issue there? I, for one, don't think it'll make the slightest electoral difference - and above all, I think it's rank hypocrisy to hear people in the Labour movement criticise doing exactly what they did.
Moreover, if we're going to get into moral values, Jeremy Corbyn's connections with Hamas, with the IRA and so on - not to mention his allies lying for him about it in an attempt to brush it all under the rug - have been truly appalling. Yet it appears that many otherwise decent Labour people are willing to endorse him as Prime Minister? I have a problem with that.
Let's not forget the leader of the DUP is a victim of the very terrorism that Jeremy Corbyn was supporting back in the 1970s: her school bus was bombed while she was on it, and her father - a police officer - was shot in the head by the IRA.
The Conservatives introduced same-sex marriage while Labour had failed. The Conservatives outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. To try to call a party with two gay cabinet ministers and a gay leader in one of the constituent parts of the UK homophobic is frankly ridiculous.
We can all look to political parties' pasts and find objectionable things. Let's not forget the Labour Party was founded by an out-and-out racist - Keir Hardie - who wanted to end all immigration and made absolutely vile comments about certain ethnic groups.
The DUP do not have links with terrorist organisations. I'd also like to see examples of the party being institutionally sectarian or racist. Indeed, I know fine well that there are Roman Catholics who vote DUP - and the DUP have reached out to them.
Well, hold on - when we have to resort to absolute nonsense, I think the case is probably a bit weak. You're referring to Sammy Wilson who appeared to agree with a comment made by a member of the public who was talking about both leaving the EU and getting the "ethnics out". The DUP immediately disassociated itself from that and Wilson said specifically that he did not agree with the member of the public's view.
If you're going to have a go at everyone who doesn't like same-sex marriage or every party that has a creationist or two within its ranks, you're going to have a fairly long list.
Again, a fairly peculiar claim.
I'm asking you to substantiate the claim that Arlene Foster is somehow sexist against women, because I think it is a very odd one to make.
Moreover, if we're going to get into moral values, Jeremy Corbyn's connections with Hamas, with the IRA and so on - not to mention his allies lying for him about it in an attempt to brush it all under the rug - have been truly appalling. Yet it appears that many otherwise decent Labour people are willing to endorse him as Prime Minister? I have a problem with that.
Let's not forget the leader of the DUP is a victim of the very terrorism that Jeremy Corbyn was supporting back in the 1970s: her school bus was bombed while she was on it, and her father - a police officer - was shot in the head by the IRA.
The Conservatives introduced same-sex marriage while Labour had failed. The Conservatives outlawed discrimination against people with disabilities. To try to call a party with two gay cabinet ministers and a gay leader in one of the constituent parts of the UK homophobic is frankly ridiculous.
We can all look to political parties' pasts and find objectionable things. Let's not forget the Labour Party was founded by an out-and-out racist - Keir Hardie - who wanted to end all immigration and made absolutely vile comments about certain ethnic groups.
The DUP do not have links with terrorist organisations. I'd also like to see examples of the party being institutionally sectarian or racist. Indeed, I know fine well that there are Roman Catholics who vote DUP - and the DUP have reached out to them.
Well, hold on - when we have to resort to absolute nonsense, I think the case is probably a bit weak. You're referring to Sammy Wilson who appeared to agree with a comment made by a member of the public who was talking about both leaving the EU and getting the "ethnics out". The DUP immediately disassociated itself from that and Wilson said specifically that he did not agree with the member of the public's view.
If you're going to have a go at everyone who doesn't like same-sex marriage or every party that has a creationist or two within its ranks, you're going to have a fairly long list.
Again, a fairly peculiar claim.
I'm asking you to substantiate the claim that Arlene Foster is somehow sexist against women, because I think it is a very odd one to make.
Men and women have equal rights on what to do with their body = Gender equality.
A woman who thinks men and women have unequal rights on what t do with their body? = Gender inequality.
It's not that complicated.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Jimbo1234
Well if all of you numpties had just backed the Tories we wouldn't have this mess would we? So you lot only have yourselves to blame!
Well if all of you numpties had just backed the Tories we wouldn't have this mess would we? So you lot only have yourselves to blame!
...
So people should have to vote for a party they don't support to keep out another party they don't support? Your logic is wow brilliant.
why should anyone be allowed to exercise their democratic right in the way they want?
Original post by Reformed2010
I think it's prima facie fairly absurd to criticise a party for sexist that has a female leader (as one of its three in the past), when you support a party that has never had a single one, out of 20-odd past leaders.
I also think it's pretty bizarre to suggest that Arlene Foster is somehow an anti-female sexist. Indeed, I suspect Ms Foster has faced rather a lot of misogyny in her time: it's rather par for the course as a female leader in the UK - never mind specifically in Northern Ireland. That you can make throw-away comments like that and expect people to somehow just swallow them is, to me, bizarre.
Original post by L i b
I think it's prima facie fairly absurd to criticise a party for sexist that has a female leader (as one of its three in the past), when you support a party that has never had a single one, out of 20-odd past leaders.
I also think it's pretty bizarre to suggest that Arlene Foster is somehow an anti-female sexist. Indeed, I suspect Ms Foster has faced rather a lot of misogyny in her time: it's rather par for the course as a female leader in the UK - never mind specifically in Northern Ireland. That you can make throw-away comments like that and expect people to somehow just swallow them is, to me, bizarre.
I also think it's pretty bizarre to suggest that Arlene Foster is somehow an anti-female sexist. Indeed, I suspect Ms Foster has faced rather a lot of misogyny in her time: it's rather par for the course as a female leader in the UK - never mind specifically in Northern Ireland. That you can make throw-away comments like that and expect people to somehow just swallow them is, to me, bizarre.
Black people who faced racism during the American Civil War were still supporting political leaders and ideologies that were racist towards Black people. Arlene Foster does not treat women and men equally and supports sexist policies. Because she was born a female does not stop her from being sexist.
Seriously, this is over. I'm done entertaining such a stupid 'debate'. You're like UKIP voters who think having Black and Brown people within their ranks prevents the party from having policies that are racist and xenophobic.
I'm debating a wall. I'm done. Bye.
Original post by horsefly80
why do people keep saying labour think there's a magic money tree when they had a fully costed manifesto i do not understand
Have you actually seen the fully costed manifesto? Or are you just repeating what you've read or heard?
It's a joke. If you produced something like that for a piece of undergraduate work, you'd be slung out of university.
Some of the costings use figures which are (in the manifesto notes) just guesses. Others use costings which come from newspaper articles. There's even one attributed to Private Eye. It's very much like someone has been asked to find out how much it would cost to (for example) get rid of tuition fees, and they've just googled it and stuck the top result in as the costing in the manifesto.
John McDonnell said he'd be happy to have the Labour manifesto scrutinised by the IFS.
The IFS scrutinised it and said it was fantasy.
https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/labour-repeatedly-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup/
Just going to leave this here. Labour needs to get off the outrage train and concentrate on something useful. To criticise the Tories for doing a deal with the DUP is so, so stupid for a number of reasons:
1. Labour tried to do deals with the DUP in 2010, see above.
2. As if the DUP are going to have any kind of influence on LGBT rights. If you honestly believe that gay marriage and the like is going to be reconsidered then you are just stupid. End of.
3. Do you really think that the Tories are just going to say 'Oh well, we can't possibly do a deal with the DUP, let's hand the country over to Jeremy Corbyn, at least we'll get re-elected in 5 years to clean up Labour's mess. Again.' No. Would Labour not do a deal with the DUP and let the Conservatives in power instead? No they wouldn't.
This culture of outrage and political irrelevance is tiring. Just work on improving your own party instead of throwing around nonsensical protests to damage other parties' reputations.
Just going to leave this here. Labour needs to get off the outrage train and concentrate on something useful. To criticise the Tories for doing a deal with the DUP is so, so stupid for a number of reasons:
1. Labour tried to do deals with the DUP in 2010, see above.
2. As if the DUP are going to have any kind of influence on LGBT rights. If you honestly believe that gay marriage and the like is going to be reconsidered then you are just stupid. End of.
3. Do you really think that the Tories are just going to say 'Oh well, we can't possibly do a deal with the DUP, let's hand the country over to Jeremy Corbyn, at least we'll get re-elected in 5 years to clean up Labour's mess. Again.' No. Would Labour not do a deal with the DUP and let the Conservatives in power instead? No they wouldn't.
This culture of outrage and political irrelevance is tiring. Just work on improving your own party instead of throwing around nonsensical protests to damage other parties' reputations.
Original post by I'm No Communist
https://order-order.com/2017/06/11/labour-repeatedly-tried-to-do-deals-with-the-dup/
Just going to leave this here. Labour needs to get off the outrage train and concentrate on something useful. To criticise the Tories for doing a deal with the DUP is so, so stupid for a number of reasons:
1. Labour tried to do deals with the DUP in 2010, see above.
2. As if the DUP are going to have any kind of influence on LGBT rights. If you honestly believe that gay marriage and the like is going to be reconsidered then you are just stupid. End of.
3. Do you really think that the Tories are just going to say 'Oh well, we can't possibly do a deal with the DUP, let's hand the country over to Jeremy Corbyn, at least we'll get re-elected in 5 years to clean up Labour's mess. Again.' No. Would Labour not do a deal with the DUP and let the Conservatives in power instead? No they wouldn't.
This culture of outrage and political irrelevance is tiring. Just work on improving your own party instead of throwing around nonsensical protests to damage other parties' reputations.
Just going to leave this here. Labour needs to get off the outrage train and concentrate on something useful. To criticise the Tories for doing a deal with the DUP is so, so stupid for a number of reasons:
1. Labour tried to do deals with the DUP in 2010, see above.
2. As if the DUP are going to have any kind of influence on LGBT rights. If you honestly believe that gay marriage and the like is going to be reconsidered then you are just stupid. End of.
3. Do you really think that the Tories are just going to say 'Oh well, we can't possibly do a deal with the DUP, let's hand the country over to Jeremy Corbyn, at least we'll get re-elected in 5 years to clean up Labour's mess. Again.' No. Would Labour not do a deal with the DUP and let the Conservatives in power instead? No they wouldn't.
This culture of outrage and political irrelevance is tiring. Just work on improving your own party instead of throwing around nonsensical protests to damage other parties' reputations.
That's you. You big baby.
The Tories can justify their reasoning to buddying up with the DUP all they like. In a a Liberal Democracy, such as we have in the UK, people like myself have a right to decry foul and express disagreement non-violently. The DUP are a disgrace and their views are too extreme for Labour or the Tories to give any chance to influence a UK government. End of. The Tories are in their right to disagree and they have but people who care about human rights and equality in this country will not just roll over. Ok? ok.If Labour was the largest political party and tried to form a supply and demand or coalition with the DUP there would be outrage from its supporters. You're living in cloud la la la land if you think the millions of voters that rushed to Labour, mainly the very progressive young and university educated would not ditch them in a heartbeat. It would be the equivalent of the SNP getting support from the Tories. Political suicide. The Tories are able to do this because their voting base is generally more socially conservative and less principled on matters of human rights and equality. Most of their voters are not really that concerned about say the European Convention of Human Rights or worry if the UK has a UN security resolution when it wants to military intervene. So the Tories can get away with getting cosy with a party that would happily have the UK commit human right abuses.
Were you on the Tory party election strategist team? I think so, because you surely know how to get a political party to screw over its core voters and thus ruin their election chances. Labour siding with the DUP would be like the Tory party dementia tax.
Dumb. Dumb. Politically dumb.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by clumsyorange
...
So people should have to vote for a party they don't support to keep out another party they don't support? Your logic is wow brilliant.
why should anyone be allowed to exercise their democratic right in the way they want?
So people should have to vote for a party they don't support to keep out another party they don't support? Your logic is wow brilliant.
why should anyone be allowed to exercise their democratic right in the way they want?
Right, time to spell it out as it is clear schools failed to teach politics;
- The UK is going through Brexit
- A govt with a very large majority would have helped
- Now we don't have that, and the EU will use it against us
Follow?
Original post by Jimbo1234
Right, time to spell it out as it is clear schools failed to teach politics;
- The UK is going through Brexit
- A govt with a very large majority would have helped
- Now we don't have that, and the EU will use it against us
Follow?
Right, time to spell it out as it is clear schools failed to teach politics;
- The UK is going through Brexit
- A govt with a very large majority would have helped
- Now we don't have that, and the EU will use it against us
Follow?
Your logic still doesn't make much sense. People weren't just basing their voting decision on Brexit, and why should they? The elected government is going to handle their country for several years?
And even if that was their focus when making the decision, what if they didn't want the Tories to handle Brexit negotiations?
By your logic, I could turn around and say everyone should have voted Labour so we could have a government w/ a majority. Or any other party.
If May deserved to win she would've gotten off of her lazy ass and tried to run a successful campaign.
Original post by clumsyorange
Your logic still doesn't make much sense. People weren't just basing their voting decision on Brexit, and why should they? The elected government is going to handle their country for several years?
And even if that was their focus when making the decision, what if they didn't want the Tories to handle Brexit negotiations?
By your logic, I could turn around and say everyone should have voted Labour so we could have a government w/ a majority. Or any other party.
If May deserved to win she would've gotten off of her lazy ass and tried to run a successful campaign.
And even if that was their focus when making the decision, what if they didn't want the Tories to handle Brexit negotiations?
By your logic, I could turn around and say everyone should have voted Labour so we could have a government w/ a majority. Or any other party.
If May deserved to win she would've gotten off of her lazy ass and tried to run a successful campaign.
Wanting the UK govt to be strong so it could succeed with Brexit talks "doesn't make much sense"
Wow.........it's not like Brexit will be the biggest political challenge which will affect the UK for decades. OH WAIT! Yes it will!!
No, Labour can't even get their budget right so how would they negotiate Brexit? Also with how awful their policies were Labour were never, ever going to win. But looks like you kids with you lack of knowledge just ****ed your selves over as this will impact you the most!
Good job!
May couldn't win because poor working class northerners resent an authoritarian woman (Labour won in all the poor northern areas even though they voted for Brexit. Go figure) and students couldn't be arsed to read a history book or simply ask a relative about the 70's. Did you ask anyone about the 70's or do any research?
Thought not.But don't bother replying if you won't tell me what research you did before screwing up and voting.
Original post by Reformed2010
Seriously, this is over. I'm done entertaining such a stupid 'debate'.
You keep asserting that Arlene Foster is a sexist bigot and supports sexist policies, yet oddly enough have been entirely unable to identify even a single one of these policies or beliefs, despite being challenged on it twice. Babbling on about irrelevancies about black people in the Confederacy or whatever is just absurd and tedious.
You're like UKIP voters who think having Black and Brown people within their ranks prevents the party from having policies that are racist and xenophobic.
Anyone else you want to randomly label racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted today? How about Liverpudlians? Or Morris Dancers? Or the bloody mascot of Brighton and Hove Albion FC?
I don't get why people whinge about their party not winning. It's democarcy. The one with the most votes gets in even if its the wrong one depending on your beliefs. You see these people calling for the tories to go, that sounds like a revolution to me, and look at all the countries who have attempted that recently, they are a fractionous civil war of all political exetremes fighting for what ever power is left from the ousted governemtn.
If you don't like the outcome of the election, just live with it. That's life, it isn't constantly working for you.
I swear that some people are not happy until their party is in power by any means necessary, even by exetreme means.
If you don't like the outcome of the election, just live with it. That's life, it isn't constantly working for you.
I swear that some people are not happy until their party is in power by any means necessary, even by exetreme means.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Well come on hun, how are the Labours party policies progressive?
Clearly you need to be more familiar with a payslip and what National Insurance is
But heck, Labour voters don't need to know facts or have experience!
Clearly you need to be more familiar with a payslip and what National Insurance is
But heck, Labour voters don't need to know facts or have experience!
But at the point where tax increases to 40% national insurance drops from 12% to 2%. In effect when liable to tax and NI as an employee you go 32% (20+12) then 42% (40+2) then ignoring the daft bit below ,47% (45+2)
There is a daft bit (circa 100,000-123,000) where marginal rates exceed 60%, this is because we have a frankly distorting and daft clawback of personal allowance at this level which gives this effective result.
Of course effectively there is one section of the workforce that pays a bit different, those over student loan repayment threshold have a starting 41% (20+12+9) then leap to 51% (40+2+9)
Original post by Jimbo1234
. Did you ask anyone about the 70's or do any research? Thought not.
But don't bother replying if you won't tell me what research you did before screwing up and voting.
Thought not.But don't bother replying if you won't tell me what research you did before screwing up and voting.
I did better than mere research on the 1970s, I just lived through them.
The catch is the comparison is just not valid, you are trying to paint Labour into a 1970s version of Labour when they are not.
The 1970s was a perfect storm due to low investment since the end of WW2, the oil shock , rising unemployment and inflation and strong union impact- the Conservatives fared little better when they were in office from 1970 to 1974 .
There is little that radical with the Labour manifesto, yes state ownership, but even there I can see good reason-railways carry far more people now and generate far more money, why should we let the profits go overseas, the whole way railway ownership, rolling stock leasing etc is organised allows others to benefit not the UK.
. Royal Mail i am not fully convinced by the need for state ownership, utility companies there is some concern re how they act though not sure re state competition.
I also see no real issue with higher corporation tax and whilst 50% higher rate is not pleasant it is hardly 80 odd percent.
Now, if you want more radical lets say start taxing people on gains made when they sell their houses and downsize releasing tax free profits, lets on second death of a couple tax the gain made on their house, do this and we could scrap IHT and just have CGT on death with no £325,000 per head and rising relief, given value of UK real estate that would certainly bring in more tax than currently on all the gains that have been made tax free. But is even this that extreme, Sweden tax house gains (and have no IHT or wealth tax).
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- Opiphobia
- Extremist social media apps should be banned in schools, colleges and universities.
- Struggle with my sexual orientation
- Jeffrey Donaldson resigns as DUP leader after historical sex offences charge
- Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- who is donald trump
- Mental health uk
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Funniest things you've overheard in class?
- summer jobs online?
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Super racist author on my personal statement
- Edexcel A-Level Politics Paper 1 Essay Feedback
- When will the next General election be ?
- A Level History Source Question Feedback !
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- 2024 UK general election speculation and build-up thread
Latest
Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 23 minutes ago
2023 ** Borders and Enforcement, Crime & Compliance - ICE - Immigration OfficersLast reply 37 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 40 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 46 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
