This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
General Election 2017
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Hansy  22 May 17 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Well they all want to keep their jobs (Those that were MPs). Could be why they are ignoring Corbyn's campaign and helping eachother instead.
|
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
Well they all want to keep their jobs (Those that were MPs). Could be why they are ignoring Corbyn's campaign and helping eachother instead. That is exactly what Labour are about in this election.
|
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 May 17 4.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Are you and new York mugman taking it in turns. I am flattered that I'm in your thoughts so much.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 4.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
Not sure this is the same Chuka, care to enlighten? Chuka Umunna was one of the leaders in the vote of No confidence on Corbyn. And more of a Centrist, which I prefer. 'Labour MP Chuka Umunna focused his questioning on Google-owned YouTube, which he accused of making money from "videos peddling hate" on its platform. ' I will agree that he's more of a centrists.....May also attacks speech liberty as well and actually bought in our current over the top 'hate' laws. This isn't strictly a left/right issue. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2017 4.56pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 22 May 17 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Unless they were Irish Catholics of course. Of course, neither side really comes off as superior, because they all have blood on their hands. Republican or Loyalist, ultimately, it was unavoidable in picking a side in the Troubles to avoid association with violence, once the civil rights movement fell apart. Of course Corbyn was also right, to an extent, that peace could not be achieved without listening to the republican movement and granting it political legitimacy - What ever emotive issues people may have had about the Troubles. Its lazy politics to score points on person, rather than policies. In truth, the UK probably f**ked up its handling of the troubles from the start, and should have accepted the UN's offer to provide peace keeping duties. The point is that Corbyn did not really equally condemn both sides, he lent towards the anti-British factions. This is illustrated by his what he said in 1984, when questioned as to his motives for hosting two convicted IRA terrorists to tea in the House of Commons two weeks after the IRA Brighton attack, he said he was "a campaigner against imperialism in Ireland".
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I totally disagree. Dementia will soon be the biggest cause of death so it needs particular attention. This system will ensure that people have help when needed and not have to give up their home. It is a brave proposal which effects traditional Tory voters and one that acknowledges that tough medicine is needed to avoid a total breakdown of care for the infirm. Nor do I particularly, which is why a percentage of their income seems fair. I don't really hold with the idea of a super tax etc. A small reasonable taxation on the higher earners seems acceptable in the short term, until the issues of low income families can be resolved. Its kind of hard to find extra taxation revenue, when you're already spending 75% of your income on accommodation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hansy 22 May 17 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Nor do I particularly, which is why a percentage of their income seems fair. I don't really hold with the idea of a super tax etc. A small reasonable taxation on the higher earners seems acceptable in the short term, until the issues of low income families can be resolved. Its kind of hard to find extra taxation revenue, when you're already spending 75% of your income on accommodation. Why not reduce the Government salaries and personal expenditure. MPs don't need a second house. - Another source of potential income.
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 5.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I totally disagree. Dementia will soon be the biggest cause of death so it needs particular attention. This system will ensure that people have help when needed and not have to give up their home. It is a brave proposal which effects traditional Tory voters and one that acknowledges that tough medicine is needed to avoid a total breakdown of care for the infirm. I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works). To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state. It seems bizarre that Tory voters are saying they want less state involvement and more control over their own money, but when they're asked to fork out for their own care they scream and shout that they can't then give that money to their kids. Having their cake and eating it too springs to mind. It's almost like they're saying they only want the welfare state so far as it benefits them but not so that it benefits those who need it most...
|
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 22 May 17 5.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
Why not reduce the Government salaries and personal expenditure. MPs don't need a second house. - Another source of potential income. A lot do, or they stay in a hotel which won't be cheap over the life of a parliament. Unless the government buy a shed load of houses and then let MPs use them.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
The point is that Corbyn did not really equally condemn both sides, he lent towards the anti-British factions. This is illustrated by his what he said in 1984, when questioned as to his motives for hosting two convicted IRA terrorists to tea in the House of Commons two weeks after the IRA Brighton attack, he said he was "a campaigner against imperialism in Ireland". Both factions were anti-British, they were killing British citizens (and the British almost certainly were colluding with some loyalist terrorists to target inconvenient Republicans who were not terrorists). Its a mistake to consider anyone representing 'patriotism' or 'British' when they're murdering citizens. Personally, I don't like Adams, and find him a necessary evil. Much like I did with Paisley - and their hero worship by people on both sides of the divide sickens me. But lets be honest, its got f**k all to do with his polices and politics now, 33 years on.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
A lot do, or they stay in a hotel which won't be cheap over the life of a parliament. Unless the government buy a shed load of houses and then let MPs use them. Oddly though, most people who have to work away from home have been excluded by HMRC from claiming accommodation as a genuine expense. Everyone, who has to maintain a home and a second location should be able to claim back accommodation as a legitimate expense if they have a receipt. It however should not apply if you're buying the place. Only hotels and rental (without that property becoming a capital gains asset).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 22 May 17 5.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Both factions were anti-British, they were killing British citizens (and the British almost certainly were colluding with some loyalist terrorists to target inconvenient Republicans who were not terrorists). Its a mistake to consider anyone representing 'patriotism' or 'British' when they're murdering citizens. Personally, I don't like Adams, and find him a necessary evil. Much like I did with Paisley - and their hero worship by people on both sides of the divide sickens me. But lets be honest, its got f**k all to do with his polices and politics now, 33 years on. And those lovely loyalists were threatening to take on 'their' Queen and Country not that long ago in a pique of toy throwing.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 22 May 17 5.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
I missed this recent news, probably already talked about, but what a fvcking bitch May is already turning out to be. I still don't understand how any decent-minded person can vote Tory. Must have their heads in the sand. "Almost one million children from poor backgrounds will lose the right to free school meals if Theresa May pushes through cuts in the Conservative manifesto, an educational think tank has warned. The Prime Minister announced last week that universal free lunches for infants will be stopped if the Tories win the June 8 general election, with free breakfasts on offer instead. The move will cost families around £440 a year for each child affected and is thought likely to save around £650 million a year, according to the research by the Education Policy Institute (EPI).
The argument being that the breakfast was of more benefit to people who work and have to drop kids off. So they don't lose free meals, they still get one, just not lunch. Also, I was under the impression that low income families and those on benefit will still get free lunches it just wont be a blanket provision. I could be wrong though
|
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 5.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Both factions were anti-British, they were killing British citizens (and the British almost certainly were colluding with some loyalist terrorists to target inconvenient Republicans who were not terrorists). Its a mistake to consider anyone representing 'patriotism' or 'British' when they're murdering citizens. Personally, I don't like Adams, and find him a necessary evil. Much like I did with Paisley - and their hero worship by people on both sides of the divide sickens me. But lets be honest, its got f**k all to do with his polices and politics now, 33 years on. I totally disagree with your equivalency. Completely disagree and I also feel pretty strongly about it so it's just another area we don't agree on.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Hansy 22 May 17 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
The argument being that the breakfast was of more benefit to people who work and have to drop kids off. So they don't lose free meals, they still get one, just not lunch. Also, I was under the impression that low income families and those on benefit will still get free lunches it just wont be a blanket provision. I could be wrong though Correct, those in poorer families still get a free school meal and a breakfast for free. Taken from The Independent: The Tories said children from poorer families would continue to get free hot lunches – as well as free breakfasts – throughout their education.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Is that the same Chuka who doesn't believe in free speech and wants social media companies to filter and ban views? Free Speech only applies to public environments, and notably to the relationship between the citizen and the state. Social Media is private, in that its owned by a company, and as such doesn't enjoy protection. Its never applied. The exception would be social media utilised by government. Which I suspect is why government uses existing social media platforms rather than its own. Free Speech is a problematic area, because it often is viewed as Free from consequence (rather like that 'enjoyed' in the US).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
Correct, those in poorer families still get a free school meal and a breakfast for free. Taken from The Independent: The Tories said children from poorer families would continue to get free hot lunches – as well as free breakfasts – throughout their education. Maybe I'm a radical, but I think it would be a benefit to the UK to ensure that all children were entitled to a nutritional breakfast and lunch as part of their education, even if they're in private schools. Regardless of their income. Then again, I think that companies should also provide 'free meals' for their staff (Breakfast and lunch and possibly dinner). Obviously, we'd have to pay for it in taxes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I totally disagree with your equivalency. Completely disagree and I also feel pretty strongly about it so it's just another area we don't agree on. Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park. That's to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a republican, a loyalist or a royalist or any persuasion - But when you're murdering people for politics, irrespective of your flavour, you have crossed the same line. Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.