The General Election Thread

[Second Skin]

Trying to decide how I will spoil my paper. Big cock and balls or a massive pair of tits?

 

[kas_tippler]

Voted conservative

Its gonna close call in CH

 

[whp.blue]

wanted to vote Conservative but in my Constituency that is a wasted vote
so voted for the second place party ukip

Hopefully they will oust Labour

I would have voted anyone before labour TBH

 

[argyle]

Late surge in support for the Socialists as ship docks in Dover.

This is ridiculous.

 

[aguero93:20]

Trying to decide how I will spoil my paper. Big cock and balls or a massive pair of tits?

Just wipe your arse with it.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

Late surge in support for the Socialists as ship docks in Dover.

This is ridiculous.

You are right. Where are the safety barriers? Where is priority boarding?


Disgusting!

 

[Damocles]

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs, later killing a whistleblower.
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spending
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

What about the irreparable damage done to this country between 1979 and 1990 by the NazisTorys, where we are still suffering because of their policies

Have to pick on the the Millenium Dome
Yes, huge waste of money, but it pales into insignificance when compared to HS2

And what about...... I couldn't give a fuck about your obviously biased opinion.

I was asked a question and gave some pointers.

Without the Tories 1979-97, the UK would now be a second world backwater like Spain or Greece.

Not sure it's really fair to argue this; we could have supported and increased the quality of our manufacturing industry in the same manner that the Germans did.

Unlikely of course but it isn't a dead cert as suggested

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm no fan of Labour but how did they destroy the country morally?

And what damage did they do between 1997 & 2010? Up to 2008 it was a period of uninterrupted growth.

It constantly both amazes and sickens me how much lying shit the right-wing red-tops get away with peddling.

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs, later killing a whistleblower.
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spending
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

[aguero93:20]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

You've subtracted £21 from their original drinks cost you fucking dingbat.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

You've subtracted £21 from their original drinks cost you fucking dingbat.

They bought them using an offshore trust therefore didn't pay any tax.

 

[Bluemanc100]

Late surge in support for the Socialists as ship docks in Dover.

This is ridiculous.

It is, that poor fucker on the guy rope is going to get friction burns

 

[Damocles]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

I really really like this post.

Because it's absolute nonsense for a start and secondly is a copy-paste job from an American post just changing dollars to pounds without changing anything to do with the tax layout, making it not only absolute nonsense politically but also literal nonsense.

 

[law74]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

I really really like this post.

Because it's absolute nonsense for a start and secondly is a copy-paste job from an American post just changing dollars to pounds without changing anything to do with the tax layout, making it not only absolute nonsense politically but also literal nonsense.

What do you expect from someone that thinks they have never benefited from a public sector employee

 

[stony]

I'm surprised UKIP haven't used this old Tory poster.

[bigimg]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11203183_10152893371279352_6955419550072583514_n.jpg?oh=67d14d7a1104c7be95c0ddaf01f93af5&oe=55C61162&__gda__=1439719028_cc58738e8007ba480acd05850a388d7c[/bigimg]

 

[papillon]

Been and cast my vote.

For some reason I feel very giddy about watching the TV coverage of it all tonight. it's got a sense of Transfer Deadline day about it. All we need is some 6 fingered Stokeist holding up a giant purple dildo behind Dimbleby and we're laughing.

 

[aguero93:20]

Been and cast my vote.

For some reason I feel very giddy about watching the TV coverage of it all tonight. it's got a sense of Transfer Deadline day about it. All we need is some 6 fingered Stokeist holding up a giant purple dildo behind Dimbleby and we're laughing.

Spot the giant purple dildo:

[bigimg]http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2013/1/31/1359625989486/Roll-up-man-008.jpg[/bigimg]

 

[SWP's back]

And what damage did they do between 1997 & 2010? Up to 2008 it was a period of uninterrupted growth.

It constantly both amazes and sickens me how much lying shit the right-wing red-tops get away with peddling.

Where do we start?

Entered an illegal war after lying to the House and population about Iraqs WMDs, later killing a whistleblower.
Presided over the greatest post war reduction in manufacturing.
Sold the Gold reserves for a record real time low to buy off the electorate with increased public spending
Spent £800m on the Millenium Dome
Ran a deficit whilst enjoying a period of Tory started growth (against Keynes who they supposedly subscribe to)
Fucked the NHS up with ridiculous PFIs
Allowed the largest immigration in 1000 years, 3m in 13 years
Saw unemployment rise over their administration (again)
Gave away the UK rebate costing £9bn

The Iraq war I'll give you but that was Blair's personal desire to please George Bush, rather than party policy. Had it been Cameron, I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same.

Manufacturing output actually reached a record high in 2007, according to the ONS, so that one's bollox.

Holding gold reserves has no value as far as a government is concerned. It's a speculative asset and in fact the sale of such reserves was restricted by international agreement after that, as our sale drove the price down, not up. The subsequent rise was largely due to the knowledge that a large scale sale couldn't happen, except maybe under extraordinary circumstances. There was therefore virtually no downside risk in buying gold from then on.

The Millenium Dome was a crock of shit but it was originally the idea of John Major's government but was expanded by Blair's. The money came from the National Lottery (£600m) and sale of tickets (£190m) so not really public funds.

The money from the NHS had to come from somewhere. It either had to be borrowed or privately financed. Given that you said Labour borrowed too much, you can't have it both ways.

Unemployment had fallen from its peak in 1997, when Labour took power, up to 2008. Obviously the recession increased it. It's never come near the levels seen under the Thatcher government. So if you want to get on your high horse about unemployment, that's when the worst damage was done.

Under Labour, UK net borrowing reached a peak of 3.5% of GDP in 2004/5 prior to the recession. 2014/15 it will be something like 5.5% and is estimated to be be 4.2% in the current fiscal year. So if borrowing was out of control under a fiscally irresponsible Labour administration, how would you class it now, when it's supposedly under control?

I'm not particularly pro-European but let's not forget which party negotiated our original entry and signed the disastrous Maastricht treaty.

You've not successfully rebutted one of my points and they all stand.

As for the bit on manufacturing. Read this <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab-11de-98ca-00144feab49a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab ... ab49a.html</a>

As for holding gold reserves having no value to a Governemnt, are you taking the piss?

 

[kas_tippler]

I forgot about Gordon Brown selling the nations gold reserves for a handful of magic beans.

 

[Damocles]

As for the bit on manufacturing. Read this <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab-11de-98ca-00144feab49a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c257da6-dfab ... ab49a.html</a>

Subscription only. Any chance of a copy/paste for us plebeians, my Lord?