Mantis Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/By3iHzICIAELtN9.jpg Is there a Labour one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/By3iHzICIAELtN9.jpg Is there a Labour one? don't know, don't follow any anti labour twitter accounts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I heard that on Sunday Politics David Cameron will reveal himself to be Batman.gideon has been robin the poor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Nick Griffin has been kicked out of the BNP. He's vowed to the fight the 'plastic gangster games' of the 'Wigton Soviet' though. Why are fascists incapable of speaking normal English? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Why are fascists incapable of speaking normal English? Is it because most of them are foreigners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Tory policy - increasing tax-free allowance to £12,500 and 40% band kicking in at £50k rather than at £42k. good or bad? election bribe? I think the tax-free allowance to £12.5k is a very good idea. I think increasing the 40% tax threshold is also a good idea, as it hasn't risen for years. More and more people are ending up paying 40% tax rather than 20% standard tax rate. BUT it means less tax collected overall which is bad, as will mean more cuts to public services. Edited October 2, 2014 by ender4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 More and more people are ending up paying 40% tax rather than 20% standard tax rate.They are all paying 20% on the income that commands that rate of tax, it's just that more people are having a proportion of their income taxed at 40%.As far as the increased tax free allowance is concerned, whilst it's not a negative I don't think it's as positive as it's sold, especially to the 'person earning minimum wage working 30 hours a week' (if one factors in tax credit freezes, marginal benefit withdrawal rates and so on) unless that's someone earning pin money. I also don't like the way that it's put across, i.e. taking x number of people out of paying tax. Direct taxation does not equal taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post markavfc40 Posted October 2, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) These proposed tax cuts are not all they are cracked up to be and certainly will be of no benefit to those that need the help the most. Firstly they are apparently dependent on the deficit being cleared by 2018 which given the Tories predictions for where the deficit would be at now then this prediction should be taken with a pinch of salt. As for who the tax cuts would benefit well the poorest 17%of workers already pay no tax so increasing the tax free allowance is **** all benefit to them. Those earning just above the current threshold will gain slightly on the one hand through the increased tax allowance but lose on the other with reduced in work benefits. As for a rise in the 40p threshold being lifted this is a typical Tory policy as it will help the top 10% of earners the most. The bigger factor in all this for me is though that these tax cuts are likely to cost around 7 billion and this money will have to come from further cuts in public spending. It is the poorest and most vulnerable in society that most rely on these public services so it would be a further kick in the teeth for them if further cuts to the already savage ones that have taken place over the last 5 years are made. Many public services are already on their knees. As stated above the poorest won’t benefit from these tax cuts and they will be further inflicted as a result in further cuts to public spending to fund them. Me personally yes I would benefit from these tax cuts. My social conscience far outweighs my need for the extra money though. I would much rather pay a little more in taxes if those worse off than me benefit and it ensures our public services are of a higher standard. Edited October 2, 2014 by markavfc40 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I tried to write essentially the same thing, but you've pretty much nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 On the day Britain started hitting IS targets she needed to re-establish the bogus assertion that Muslims travelling abroad to fight for Islam, are not prompted by Western aggression, as they see it, but by radicalization. I'm not supporting what May had to say, per se, civil liberties have taken such a hammering since 2001 it's a wonder there is anything left to remove. That said, trying to spin the fact hundreds of UK Muslims going to fight for IS is some sort of reaction against perceived western aggression just doesn't stack up. They have gone out there, to a place with no western forces, with the express intention of killing other Muslims and helping to create a caliphate. It doesn't get much more religiously motivated than that. I think part of the problem for us secular western types, is our inability to imagine others being able to utterly abandon their critical reasoning and/or concepts of decency and morals, to indulge in an orgy of religiously motivated violence against men, women and children. What will people say if/when there is another atrocity against civilians in the UK by Jihadi minded folk? They are not real Muslims? It's a religion of peace? Islam was spread through violence at the point of a sword. The reenactment society rampaging through Iraq and Syria just happen to have better kit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 On the day Britain started hitting IS targets she needed to re-establish the bogus assertion that Muslims travelling abroad to fight for Islam, are not prompted by Western aggression, as they see it, but by radicalization. I'm not supporting what May had to say, per se, civil liberties have taken such a hammering since 2001 it's a wonder there is anything left to remove. That said, trying to spin the fact hundreds of UK Muslims going to fight for IS is some sort of reaction against perceived western aggression just doesn't stack up. They have gone out there, to a place with no western forces, with the express intention of killing other Muslims and helping to create a caliphate. It doesn't get much more religiously motivated than that. I think part of the problem for us secular western types, is our inability to imagine others being able to utterly abandon their critical reasoning and/or concepts of decency and morals, to indulge in an orgy of religiously motivated violence against men, women and children. What will people say if/when there is another atrocity against civilians in the UK by Jihadi minded folk? They are not real Muslims? It's a religion of peace? Islam was spread through violence at the point of a sword. The reenactment society rampaging through Iraq and Syria just happen to have better kit. The reasons people decide to go are both varied and complicated but it always seems that when the subject is discussed, there is a determination to discuss every conceivable reason except foreign policy. I just thought May was steering the narrative back to discussing the nature of Islam rather than areas which question government policy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 2, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2014 On the day Britain started hitting IS targets she needed to re-establish the bogus assertion that Muslims travelling abroad to fight for Islam, are not prompted by Western aggression, as they see it, but by radicalization. I'm not supporting what May had to say, per se, civil liberties have taken such a hammering since 2001 it's a wonder there is anything left to remove. That said, trying to spin the fact hundreds of UK Muslims going to fight for IS is some sort of reaction against perceived western aggression just doesn't stack up. They have gone out there, to a place with no western forces, with the express intention of killing other Muslims and helping to create a caliphate. It doesn't get much more religiously motivated than that. I think part of the problem for us secular western types, is our inability to imagine others being able to utterly abandon their critical reasoning and/or concepts of decency and morals, to indulge in an orgy of religiously motivated violence against men, women and children. What will people say if/when there is another atrocity against civilians in the UK by Jihadi minded folk? They are not real Muslims? It's a religion of peace? Islam was spread through violence at the point of a sword. The reenactment society rampaging through Iraq and Syria just happen to have better kit. The reasons people decide to go are both varied and complicated but it always seems that when the subject is discussed, there is a determination to discuss every conceivable reason except foreign policy. I just thought May was steering the narrative back to discussing the nature of Islam rather than areas which question government policy. Odd that you say the reasons are varied and complicated, previously you seemed to be very clear that they were the direct consequence purely of Western foreign policy. It is a little rich to suggest those who seek to point out it is perhaps due to other things are in some way 'steering the narative' having previously been quite so selective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted October 2, 2014 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted October 2, 2014 These proposed tax cuts are not all they are cracked up to be and certainly will be of no benefit to those that need the help the most. Firstly they are apparently dependent on the deficit being cleared by 2018 which given the Tories predictions for where the deficit would be at now then this prediction should be taken with a pinch of salt. As for who the tax cuts would benefit well the poorest 17%of workers already pay no tax so increasing the tax free allowance is **** all benefit to them. Those earning just above the current threshold will gain slightly on the one hand through the increased tax allowance but lose on the other with reduced in work benefits. As for a rise in the 40p threshold being lifted this is a typical Tory policy as it will help the top 10% of earners the most. The bigger factor in all this for me is though that these tax cuts are likely to cost around 7 billion and this money will have to come from further cuts in public spending. It is the poorest and most vulnerable in society that rely on these public services so it would be a further kick in the teeth for them if further cuts to the already savage ones that have taken place over the last 5 years are made. Many public services are already on their knees. As stated above the poorest won’t benefit from these tax cuts and they will be further inflicted as a result in further cuts to public spending to fund them. Me personally yes I would benefit from these tax cuts. My social conscience far outweighs my need for the extra money though. I would much rather pay a little more in taxes if those worse off than me benefit and it ensures our public services are of a higher standard. Further to this, if the scumbags are going to let some people (me included) keep more of the money I earn at some popint in the future, as they say they will, but are going to dismantle my chances of keeping my job, or getting treated in hospital or by a GP, or driving on decent roads, travelling on decent trains and living in a clean environment and so on - i.e if it'll come at the cost of further wrecking the place, then they can shove it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 On the day Britain started hitting IS targets she needed to re-establish the bogus assertion that Muslims travelling abroad to fight for Islam, are not prompted by Western aggression, as they see it, but by radicalization. I'm not supporting what May had to say, per se, civil liberties have taken such a hammering since 2001 it's a wonder there is anything left to remove. That said, trying to spin the fact hundreds of UK Muslims going to fight for IS is some sort of reaction against perceived western aggression just doesn't stack up. They have gone out there, to a place with no western forces, with the express intention of killing other Muslims and helping to create a caliphate. It doesn't get much more religiously motivated than that. I think part of the problem for us secular western types, is our inability to imagine others being able to utterly abandon their critical reasoning and/or concepts of decency and morals, to indulge in an orgy of religiously motivated violence against men, women and children. What will people say if/when there is another atrocity against civilians in the UK by Jihadi minded folk? They are not real Muslims? It's a religion of peace? Islam was spread through violence at the point of a sword. The reenactment society rampaging through Iraq and Syria just happen to have better kit. The reasons people decide to go are both varied and complicated but it always seems that when the subject is discussed, there is a determination to discuss every conceivable reason except foreign policy. I just thought May was steering the narrative back to discussing the nature of Islam rather than areas which question government policy. Well current western foreign policy is the one thing not responsible for the behaviour of these murderers (no invasion, no presence on the ground, no aircraft dropping bombs) unless you want to argue the historical effect of 2003 on the present which has merit, just not as a justification for the four lions brigade going out there today. If anything we have studiously stayed out of the fray, although Cameron wanted to bomb the Syrian regime opposing IS not long ago, highlighting the lack of any real strategic thinking by UK gov. As to May, I thought she did everything she could to avoid stating these people are religiously motivated - religion of peace, not Islamic etc. UK government policy in this area is incoherent dog toffee across the piece. Wishing away the religious motivation of people fighting to establish the Caliphate does not make it reality and does not help anyone in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 On the day Britain started hitting IS targets she needed to re-establish the bogus assertion that Muslims travelling abroad to fight for Islam, are not prompted by Western aggression, as they see it, but by radicalization. I'm not supporting what May had to say, per se, civil liberties have taken such a hammering since 2001 it's a wonder there is anything left to remove. That said, trying to spin the fact hundreds of UK Muslims going to fight for IS is some sort of reaction against perceived western aggression just doesn't stack up. They have gone out there, to a place with no western forces, with the express intention of killing other Muslims and helping to create a caliphate. It doesn't get much more religiously motivated than that. I think part of the problem for us secular western types, is our inability to imagine others being able to utterly abandon their critical reasoning and/or concepts of decency and morals, to indulge in an orgy of religiously motivated violence against men, women and children. What will people say if/when there is another atrocity against civilians in the UK by Jihadi minded folk? They are not real Muslims? It's a religion of peace? Islam was spread through violence at the point of a sword. The reenactment society rampaging through Iraq and Syria just happen to have better kit. The reasons people decide to go are both varied and complicated but it always seems that when the subject is discussed, there is a determination to discuss every conceivable reason except foreign policy. I just thought May was steering the narrative back to discussing the nature of Islam rather than areas which question government policy. Odd that you say the reasons are varied and complicated, previously you seemed to be very clear that they were the direct consequence purely of Western foreign policy. It is a little rich to suggest those who seek to point out it is perhaps due to other things are in some way 'steering the narative' having previously been quite so selective. I would probably put it like this. Over the last thirty years the Muslims I have spoken to usually expressed annoyance and even anger at the way America controls Islamic countries for their own interests - the coups, the puppet governments, Palestine and the Saudi Princes etc. So yes, the Muslims I have spoken to have expressed concerns about foreign policy. The reasons that anger might get serious enough to make an individual want to go and fight or whatever, would come under the heading of 'varied and complicated'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 2, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2014 Problem is they seen my going to fight the West are they, they are going to lop the heads off fellow Muslim men, women and children. That isn't down to Western foreign policy even if as I think everyone agrees it hasn my helped matters, it's down to religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 2, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2014 Problem is they seen my going to fight the West are they, ...everyone agrees it hasn my helped matters, it's down to religion. Calling Dem to the translation room, please. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 sorry no idea what he is talking about there mr bland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 sorry no idea what he is talking about there mr bland Who cares, you've got great fun bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 2, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2014 Problem is they seen my going to fight the West are they...Yoda is that you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts