Election prediction time

[Paninistickers]

6 minutes ago, bmt said:

Jokes thing about this is it's definitely our leicestershire and midlands friends who would change from labour to reform

What.did Labour get last time? 30%? 

 

I struggle to imagine why that would increase. These extra 13% must be doolally. other than lifelong labour, why would people vote for this anodyne, meaningless,.pointless version of labour whose sole 'policy' seems to be to avoid upsetting Jewish people. 

 

Give me conviction politicians, give me single issue campaigners.. Give me genuine political talent (of any colour). Give me public servants. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bmt]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

What.did Labour get last time? 30%? 

 

I struggle to imagine why that would increase. These extra 13% must be doolally. other than lifelong labour, why would people vote for this anodyne, meaningless,.pointless version of labour whose sole 'policy' seems to be to avoid upsetting Jewish people. 

 

Give me conviction politicians, give me single issue campaigners.. Give me genuine political talent (of any colour). Give me public servants. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To avoid conservatives. I think this election is clearly voting against Labour than voting for conservatives. Don't disagree with your post but Tories are gone 

[HighPeakFox]

12 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

What.did Labour get last time? 30%? 

 

I struggle to imagine why that would increase. These extra 13% must be doolally. other than lifelong labour, why would people vote for this anodyne, meaningless,.pointless version of labour whose sole 'policy' seems to be to avoid upsetting Jewish people. 

 

Give me conviction politicians, give me single issue campaigners.. Give me genuine political talent (of any colour). Give me public servants. 

Nice insults to anyone that disagrees with you. Plenty of talent in the Labour ranks. 

 

Farage is both a "conviction" politician and a single issue candidate. So presumably you'd vote for him over a Labour candidate... 

 

 

Edited 6 June by HighPeakFox

[Paninistickers]

3 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Farage is both a conviction politician and a single issue candidate. So presumably you'd vote for him over a Labour candidate... 

 

100% I would. And I say that as an absolute fanatical remainer. 

 

 It's not about insulting those who don't agree with me..Vote Green,.Libs,.Reform, Independent, Corbyn and Galloway It is actually in the public's hands to demand good government and public service.

 

But labour? FFS, they haven't earned a vote.. I'm baffled where and why anyone who isn't tribal labour would lend them a vote.  Winning by default ain't winning. The public can change this and demand something more than governing for governing's sake. 

 

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

100% I would. And I say that as an absolute fanatical remainer. 

 

 It's not about insulting those who don't agree with me..Vote Green,.Libs,.Reform, Independent, Corbyn and Galloway It is actually in the public's hands to demand good government and public service.

 

But labour? FFS, they haven't earned a vote.. I'm baffled where and why anyone who isn't tribal labour would lend them a vote.  Winning by default ain't winning. The public can change this and demand something more than governing for governing's sake.

Well, you're honest at least. But talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... 

[grobyfox1990]

11 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Funny, but they already did that.

Net worth of around £650m, so reasonable to assume annual passive income alone at 5% of £32.5m. So at a marginal tax rate of around 33% she should be paying min c.£10m tax. Akshata is not paying £10m of tax

[Paninistickers]

3 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Well, you're honest at least. But talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... 

There is an element of that, I accept. 

 

But the alternative is to either endorse Labour or vote for 'none of the above'. Either is an endorsement of mediocrity (at best)

 

I'm kinda enjoying Ed Davey just fcking the whole thing off and almost mocking the classical campaign trail tactics

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

There is an element of that, I accept. 

 

But the alternative is to either endorse Labour or vote for 'none of the above'. Either is an endorsement of mediocrity (at best)

 

I'm kinda enjoying Ed Davey just fcking the whole thing off and almost mocking the classical campaign trail tactics

Again, I admire your lack of defensiveness here. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't actually matter. I hope that if Labour do win, they do better than you fear. 

[Dunge]

26 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

What.did Labour get last time? 30%? 

 

I struggle to imagine why that would increase. These extra 13% must be doolally. other than lifelong labour, why would people vote for this anodyne, meaningless,.pointless version of labour whose sole 'policy' seems to be to avoid upsetting Jewish people. 

 

Give me conviction politicians, give me single issue campaigners.. Give me genuine political talent (of any colour). Give me public servants. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m voting for them because they look like they’ll run the country competently. I don’t care for inspiration - I don’t need it. I don’t care for conviction politicians - it means they won’t listen. If we want ceremony we have the royals; anyone who goes into politics for adulation shouldn’t be in politics.

I have no desire for personalities right now. Give me someone who’ll keep the country running while we live our lives in it.

[Mark_w]

37 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

What.did Labour get last time? 30%? 

 

I struggle to imagine why that would increase. These extra 13% must be doolally. other than lifelong labour, why would people vote for this anodyne, meaningless,.pointless version of labour whose sole 'policy' seems to be to avoid upsetting Jewish people. 

 

Give me conviction politicians, give me single issue campaigners.. Give me genuine political talent (of any colour). Give me public servants.

Labour got 40% of the vote last time. They will lose a tiny section of that to people who think that it's an Israel/Palestine referendum, and gain a shitload from people who want sensible politicians interested in more than a single issue in charge of the country.

Edited 6 June by Mark_w

[Mickyblueeyes]

I’m in no way a LibDem voter but I thought this was a powerful piece by Ed Davey. A far better approach compared to the two idiots on debate this week. 
 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Exactly four weeks tonight we could be free of these parasites for a generation.

[Zear0]

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

 

 

"See you in about four weeks then? How d'you like your tea?"

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, Daggers said:

Do you seriously believe she pays the correct amount of tax?

 

*not the “legal” amount

The legal amount of tax is the correct amount of tax.  If the law changes then fine.  If you are asking if I think the UK should be able to freely tax people's worldwide earnings then no not really.  Earnings should be taxed at source. 

[Jon the Hat]

 

7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

You know they don't run the company right?  She is a shareholder with less than % of the shares.

Edited 6 June by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Net worth of around £650m, so reasonable to assume annual passive income alone at 5% of £32.5m. So at a marginal tax rate of around 33% she should be paying min c.£10m tax. Akshata is not paying £10m of tax

You have no idea how much tax she is paying.  

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Exactly four weeks tonight we could be free of these parasites for a generation.

I don't know how you can look at the swing from 2019 and seriously say this.  Events dear boy, events.

[Daggers]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The legal amount of tax is the correct amount of tax.  If the law changes then fine.  If you are asking if I think the UK should be able to freely tax people's worldwide earnings then no not really.  Earnings should be taxed at source. 

Amoral.

[ozleicester]

Just now, Daggers said:

Amoral.

youve mispelt c...

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Amoral.

Not at all.  It is the job of the government to set taxes, not of companies or individuals to voluntarily pay more tax than is due.  Of course, tax evasion is wrong and illegal.  If Labour come in and tax the rich more then I completely support their right to do it and companies and individuals.

 

9 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

youve mispelt c...

I know you think companies taking advantage of government incentives to encourage investment and create jobs is wrong, so I am not going to worry too much about your position on taxation.

[HighPeakFox]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I don't know how you can look at the swing from 2019 and seriously say this.  Events dear boy, events.

He said 'could', not 'will'.

[grobyfox1990]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

You have no idea how much tax she is paying.  

If she was even paying 5% of the tax she really should be paying it would be the tories biggest marketing tactic of this election. Reverse engineering means we kinda do know what she pays, f all. Govt set the rules and we set govt, she might be doing the ‘right’ thing as it stands but she’ll be doing the right thing in California in a few weeks time after we sack her husband 

[LanguedocFox]

Fascinating. Or something.
 

[Sampson]

Sunak getting slaughtered by the right wing commentators who usually are Tory mouthpieces over leaving d-day commemorations early to do an itv interview.

 

Genuinely can’t believe how incompetent the team running his campaign are. He’s doing everything in his power possible to lose even the staunchest of flag waving Tories.

Edited 7 June by Sampson