blandy Posted May 16, 2017 Moderator Share Posted May 16, 2017 20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Either Laura Kuenssberg or her online editor has simply given up trying: It's is true, though, which is kind of a significant factor in a headline (and as you say it's the Web ed. not LK who will have written the headline). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Either Laura Kuenssberg or her online editor has simply given up trying: Did you not hear Corbyns speech then as thats what a manifesto stated What does everyone make of the tuition fees being scrapped? Good move or bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 3 hours ago, ml1dch said: The main change in SDLT in 2014 was that anybody keeping rather than selling a property pays a 3% surcharge. So buying a second or investment property for £400k pays twelve grand more than they used to. I fail to see how that is anything other than beneficial for someone buying a first home or looking to move to something bigger for their family. The other change made it a bit cheaper (SDLT wise) to buy a property worth between £250k - £450k and more expensive to buy something with a higher price than that. But not much more expensive, until you move towards the million pound mark. At £600,000 for example it's now £20k rather than £18k. Again, I fail to see how that is a bad thing. I'd almost forgotten about SDLT, as it doesn't exist over here. Nearly made me cry when I worked out what it was going to be. F-ing Tories! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 16, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted May 16, 2017 I have heard that SDLT can be relatively easy to avoid, although HMRC would likely argue the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 1 hour ago, blandy said: No, they really haven't. That's a non-credible thing to say. There may, or may not be some sort of stigma attached to having to use food banks, but I strongly feel that as their use has become much more widespread, any stigma there is is much less than whatever it might have been before, and I also have never heard any adverse comment about anyone forced into using them based on their need to support themselves. I would say that if food banks were considered a normal means of distribution then there would be no suggestion that using them entails a loss of dignity, and without that implied loss of dignity, Labour et al would not be able to frame it as an issue and say it is shameful. Ken Loach's propaganda piece, I, Daniel Blake, made it clear what the common perception of food banks is: the absolute last resort for the desperate. And that, creates a stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 48 minutes ago, Chindie said: I have heard that SDLT can be relatively easy to avoid, although HMRC would likely argue the case. Certainly not legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted May 16, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted May 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Certainly not legally. I think it was a 'grey' area. Anywho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted May 16, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted May 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Did you not hear Corbyns speech then as thats what a manifesto stated What does everyone make of the tuition fees being scrapped? Good move or bad? Neither,I think it's marvellous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 3 hours ago, Demitri_C said: Did you not hear Corbyns speech then as thats what a manifesto stated What does everyone make of the tuition fees being scrapped? Good move or bad? Is free further education at 18 is a good thing? Personally, I'd make it compulsory in some form, from CPD to apprenticeships, to gcse's to degrees. I think it's probably a bit better than fox hunting or selling off the royal mail or getting G4S to 'look after' young offenders or coming up with a new form to fill in if you've been raped. So overall, I'd say, good. Hell of a good manifesto. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 57 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Neither,I think it's marvellous. Pity the Labour drone on newsnight can't say when it might start. Labour's manifesto looks like a letter to Santa for a sack full of goodies. I don't know if its authors are too stupid to ask how it will be paid for (hardworking elves, maybe) or they think the public are too stupid to do the same. The Tories are a lump of coal that Corbyn's crew are trying their best to present as a diamond who can now win on a six word manifesto: "We're not as daft as Labour." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Awol said: I don't know if its authors are too stupid to ask how it will be paid for How was the spending of the Tory-led coalition government and the Tory government of the last two years 'paid for'? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 latest Office of National Statistics figures: I'm sure any day now the tory party will be quizzed, quizzed and quizzed again on the numbers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 2 hours ago, ml1dch said: Certainly not legally. There are still SDLT avoidance schemes out there. They are 'legal' as in they are avoidance not evasion, which will land you in jail, but whether they work or not is another thing. Most will land you with a bill for the original tax, plus penalties, plus interest, plus the fact that you've probably paid a fee to run the scheme. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Awol said: Labour's manifesto looks like a letter to Santa for a sack full of goodies. I don't know if its authors are too stupid to ask how it will be paid for (hardworking elves, maybe) or they think the public are too stupid to do the same. Since nobody in the Labour party actually believes that they can win, or even gain seats, in this election, the purpose of the manifesto is not to lay out a programme for government but to shift the Overton window to the left a bit and see if any of the policies 'take off' at all. The purpose is much the same as those free comedy nights where stand-ups test new material (feel free to make the obvious joke here). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 It does seem to me, it's one of those "it seems to good to be true" with this manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 8 hours ago, chrisp65 said: latest Office of National Statistics figures: I'm sure any day now the tory party will be quizzed, quizzed and quizzed again on the numbers. Surely the main problem here is the deficit? It was almost impossible to avoid the debt going up a shitload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: Surely the main problem here is the deficit? It was almost impossible to avoid the debt going up a shitload. £800billion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted May 17, 2017 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2017 32 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: Surely the main problem here is the deficit? It was almost impossible to avoid the debt going up a shitload. Is that the deficit they were going to pay off in the term of one parliament, the reason for the austerity measures? Throughout history the Tory mantra of low taxes and fiscal responsibility blah blah has never been true they almost always taxed more than Labour and sent the country deeper into debt more than Labour But you know people believe what they read in the press and not the actual facts 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 10 hours ago, PieFacE said: Neither,I think it's marvellous. See back to my original point, about look after my own interests but still can look out for others. although it doesnt benefit me whatsoever as I don't have kids I am in favour of the free tuition fees, providing they are honest how they intend to pay for that. That is going to need a hell of a lot of money from somewhere. My only concern with making it free, is what happens with drop outs? Would they repay the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I see that simply repeating the mantra "Labour's budget black hole" has worked. How are they going to pay for it? Probably with the raises to taxes specified in their manifesto. Blah blah. Black hole. Strong and stable. Etc. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts