UK General Election 12 December

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Of course, that entire argument is horseshit because brexit will force many more businesses to shut down, and raise costs for everyone.

---

Not really. All independent forecasts are for the U.K. to continue growing post Brexit just maybe a bit slower. And SMEs are likely the least exposed to Brexit.

Bottom line is that Labour in their own numbers expect to extract £40 billion more in taxes from corporations while simultaneously jacking up wages while claiming that won't effect employment or the poor or have any knock on effects!

Get real! If companies see their expenses sky rocket combined with taxes shooting up and if they dare to make a profit then they will be doubly taxed trying to take that out then it isn't rocket science what will happen next. Brexit is nothing in comparison.

SMEs are extremely exposed to brexit, eg. SMEs in logistics/haulage, any SMEs that buys equipment and products from abroad, etc. It's really interesting to see your claim about "all independent forecasts", and it would be illuminating to get an explanation of what you mean with "independent" and to see details on three such forecasts. The impact of Brexit has likely already matched or outweighed those £40b, so Brexit is already more harmful than Labour policies.

For the nationalist, nationalism always trumps economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

SMEs are extremely exposed to brexit, eg. SMEs in logistics/haulage, any SMEs that buys equipment and products from abroad, etc. It's really interesting to see your claim about "all independent forecasts", and it would be illuminating to get an explanation of what you mean with "independent" and to see details on three such forecasts. The impact of Brexit has likely already matched or outweighed those £40b, so Brexit is already more harmful than Labour policies.

---

What Brexit impact? We haven't stopped growing and have full employment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not really. All independent forecasts are for the U.K. to continue growing post Brexit just maybe a bit slower. And SMEs are likely the least exposed to Brexit.

Bottom line is that Labour in their own numbers expect to extract £40 billion more in taxes from corporations while simultaneously jacking up wages while claiming that won't effect employment or the poor or have any knock on effects!

Get real! If companies see their expenses sky rocket combined with taxes shooting up and if they dare to make a profit then they will be doubly taxed trying to take that out then it isn't rocket science what will happen next. Brexit is nothing in comparison.

---

According to the OBR, no deal Brexit - which you've spend the last 3 years telling us would be basically fine - would cause the UK economy to shrink by 2% by the end of 2020. 2% of the UK GDP is about 100 billion. That money wouldn't be taken as taxes and reinvested into actually useful things like schools, hospitals or infrastructure which both contribute to the GDP and indirectly benefit the business world, it would just be gone. If you've been telling us how the UK economy can easily tough out no-deal, you can't exactly sit there with your bare face hanging out and tell us that Corbyn's extremely-within-historical-norms tax increases are going to destroy the economy.

I mean, you can and it would be very on brand for you to do that, but it's not, you know, good.

I've never wanted a No Deal Brexit nor have the Tories. Farage and his ilk actually want that.

I've always said a mutually respectful deal was in everybody's interests and we have one now.

Corbyn's proposals are not within historical norms, they go miles beyond historical norms. And that's without considering the £58bn bung to the WASPI hypocrites today that was completely unfunded and not in his manifesto. Because that's entirely his MO, what's £58bn between friends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What Brexit impact? We haven't stopped growing and have full employment.

---

Yeah, and a snail's pace is still moving forward.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-business-live

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJF8esjX...ng&name=medium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What Brexit impact? We haven't stopped growing and have full employment.

---

2.5% to 2.9% hit to GDP already. The starting point is that the Brexit process has already cost more than Labour's policies are projected to. Businesses large and small have already been harmed by uncertainty and prep/mitigation costs. Try and spin it all you like, but it's pretty silly to get hysterical about Labour's proposals after backing an equally harmful decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I've never wanted a No Deal Brexit nor have the Tories. Farage and his ilk actually want that.

I've always said a mutually respectful deal was in everybody's interests and we have one now.

Corbyn's proposals are not within historical norms, they go miles beyond historical norms. And that's without considering the £58bn bung to the WASPI hypocrites today that was completely unfunded and not in his manifesto. Because that's entirely his MO, what's £58bn between friends?

---

No Dumbo, you do not have a deal. You have an agreement that settles your obligations and give you the perspective of being able to negotiate a deal. And no doubt you will vote in three weeks for a party that will throw away what little you gained so far by refusing to accept that a deal will not be concluded before the end of 2020.

Which means you art hurtling towards a no deal chaotic exit.

Not sure how someone can read all these direct quotes and not reach the conclusion that Johnson is a misogynist and a racist.

https://www.indy100.com/article/bori...s-lgbt-9215711

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I've never wanted a No Deal Brexit nor have the Tories. Farage and his ilk actually want that.

I've always said a mutually respectful deal was in everybody's interests and we have one now.

---

I know you've never wanted a no deal Brexit, but you've always made the case that a no deal Brexit - were it to happen - would not be that big of a deal, and the UK economy would essentially be able to tank the damage. A few months ago, your main position was that May should have been prepared to walk away from negotiations in order to secure a better deal, which is a strategy that substantially increases the risk of no deal.

You've never wanted a no deal brexit as your first choice, but you've made it perfectly clear you were happy with it as a second choice compared to, for example, another referendum.

Quote:

---

Corbyn's proposals are not within historical norms, they go miles beyond historical norms. And that's without considering the £58bn bung to the WASPI hypocrites today that was completely unfunded and not in his manifesto. Because that's entirely his MO, what's £58bn between friends?

---

FYI: Given the amount of false statements I've had to refute so far, such as the claim that the small profits rate is applied by turnover rather than profit (which may have been an honest mistake on Timbuk's part or a mistake in the manifesto which was corrected when I looked at it) and also your general history of dishonesty, I will be ignoring any and all comments about the Labour manifesto that do not include a page number and a link to the right document or in the case of something non-manifesto related, a link to a reputable news source to both demonstrate the think actually happened and to provide the appropriate context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Not sure how someone can read all these direct quotes and not reach the conclusion that Johnson is a misogynist and a racist.

https://www.indy100.com/article/bori...s-lgbt-9215711

---

Yeah, but Corbyn may have mispronounced a dude's name and isn't that the Real Racism? </uk media>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Not sure how someone can read all these direct quotes and not reach the conclusion that Johnson is a misogynist and a racist.

https://www.indy100.com/article/bori...s-lgbt-9215711

---

Exposing his lack of character only serves to endear him to others who lack character. Just as the Spectator's repugnant bigotry has a large and appreciative audience, Johnson—lifelong repugnant bigot—has a base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Exposing his lack of character only serves to endear him to others who lack character. Just as the Spectator's repugnant bigotry has a large and appreciative audience, Johnson—lifelong repugnant bigot—has a base.

---

Yet, if I see the polling and the way apparently the British electorate is willing to go over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings, I can't help but thinking that the problem is bigger than the peddling of lies by politicians.

Never had this happen before but I've just by pure coincidence bumped into the candidate I'll be voting for this election. I just got home and parked on the road (there's no off road parking) just as 2 people wearing blue rosettes were walking past - a man carrying a clipboard and a woman with a stack of flyers. Got to chatting briefly with them and the woman handed me a flyer - and I realised that it was her face on the flyer, she was the candidate. She seemed very friendly, I hope she gets elected.

Twitter Link
Interesting chart and patterns.

I know loads of nice people who I wouldn't give my vote. It's definitely not a good reason to think someone is worth your vote.

Get a load of this, right.

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has backed out of yet another TV debate, this time on climate change. He was replaced with a big block of ice. Johnson then sent his dad (????) down to Channel 4 to try and get them to let Gove take part in his place:

Twitter Link

And when they won't let him since the debate was intended for leaders, Gove said C4 had "vetoed a conservative voice" and have filed a formal complaint with Ofcom:

Twitter Link

And have, apprantly, threatened to "review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations"

Twitter Link

It's fucking pathetic.

Here's a picture of the sculpture. I think it's very tasteful, I don't know what the Tory's are complaining about.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11...4964352402.jpg

Should have given him the Roy Hattersley treatment.

What a shock to see you spreading this lie and nonsense. :rolleyes:. Not unusually for Channel 4 who are not remotely impartial this whole thing was a load of crap. Firstly Stanley Johnson didn't just turn up, he was invited by Channel 4.

Channel 4, quite literally the 4th rate news operation in this country, have no right to demand the Prime Minister attends a minor TV event. At the best of times not even the BBC does, the only person who can summon the Prime Minister is Her Majesty the Queen. I don't think any Prime Minister has ever attended a debate on Channel 4 who don't even send journalists to news interviews (they get ITN to do all that legwork). Debates are arranged between the parties and the broadcasters, this debate was not arranged. Channel 4 announced this and the minor parties said they could attend [afterall the real broadcasters are more into head to head debates some of which have already occured than this 7 way nonsense] and Boris said immediately he couldn't attend because he had existing commitments on that date. In case you hadn't noticed there's an election going on right now and he was campaigning in Wales in pre-announced events that were announced before this debate was announced by Channel 4 without them confirming his availability or attendance.

However we don't have a Presidential Election, this is a Parliamentary Election and why Channel 4 are probably in very serious breach of OFCOM regulations with their petulant and childish antics. The media doesn't invite leaders etc they invite parties, they can request the leader but they can't demand it. The Conservatives are entitled to send who they want to represent the party under OFCOM regulations, just as Amber Rudd represented the Tories at a BBC debate last election. Just as tomorrow multiple parties have other MPs taking part in one of the 7-way debates. But to make it worse Channel 4 then said this was a Climate Debate so who better to represent that for the Conservative Party than one of the parties most senior MPs who was until recently the Environment Secretary and is responsible for the parties Climate Policies? Gove is not just a random person he is literally the parties Climate expert who offered himself to take part in what they were calling #ClimateDebate. If they had said this was an economic debate would they have rejected the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking part? Pathetic.

As for the Buzzfeed bullshit from an unnamed source, that is typical Buzzfeed bullshit. In case you didn't know this Channel 4's public sector broadcasting obligations expire in 2024. Its not a threat that the Tories will review them, whoever wins the election will be reviewing them. If the Tories win and don't renew or review them then they will expire automatically.

I can understand how Johnson might be afraid of Channel 4 after they not only caught him lying on camera but also called him out for doing so. Liars like Johnson hate/fear getting exposed.

Yes Channel 4 have a long history of anti-Tory bias and being unprofessional I completely agree.

Rather than "you know nothing Jon Snow", we have on Channel 4 Jon "Fuck the Tories" Snow.

If the BBC's main journalist had been seen chanting "Fuck Labour" or "Fuck Corbyn" or "Fuck the socialists" then they would not have remained a BBC journalist. For a journalist which has a duty of impartiality that would be gross misconduct but for Channel 4 though Jon Snow going to a Corbyn rally and chanting "Fuck the Tories" is just another day in the office.

Like "Fuck business" and "Fuck the families of 7/7"?

I do not and never have approved the expression "Fuck business".

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding 7/7 families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes Channel 4 have a long history of anti-Tory bias and being unprofessional I completely agree.

Rather than "you know nothing Jon Snow", we have on Channel 4 Jon "Fuck the Tories" Snow.

If the BBC's main journalist had been seen chanting "Fuck Labour" or "Fuck Corbyn" or "Fuck the socialists" then they would not have remained a BBC journalist. For a journalist which has a duty of impartiality that would be gross misconduct but for Channel 4 though Jon Snow going to a Corbyn rally and chanting "Fuck the Tories" is just another day in the office.

---

This has nothing to do with them catching Johnson lying on camera. Johnson is responsible for his lies.

To call someone a liar is very pejorative and unprofessional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

To call someone a liar is very pejorative and unprofessional.

---

They didn't call him a liar in that segment, they simply showed viewers that he lied, and told him what he had actually said—which he continued to lie about. Do you know what is really unprofessional? An MP lying on camera. That's Johnson. You're supporting a liar.

I have no objection to showing videos and letting the public decide.

That is not what I am referring to, the head of Channel 4 news has repeatedly called Johnson a liar. Everyone involved with Channel 4 news is very leftwing and open about it. In no professional media does someone go around chanting "Fuck the Tories" and continue to represent the Channel as an impartial "journalist". Channel 4 has about as much credibility for impartiality as Fox. Do you think its appropriate for an "impartial" journalist to be chanting "fuck the Tories" in public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I do not and never have approved the expression "Fuck business".

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding 7/7 families.

---

Not you. Our Prime Minister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

To call someone a liar is very pejorative and unprofessional.

---

He did lie. That makes him a liar. I'm not seeing the pejorative here. It's a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

To call someone a liar is very pejorative and unprofessional.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

He did lie. That makes him a liar. I'm not seeing the pejorative here. It's a fact.

---

Can you prove that he lied rather than making an honest mistake? People do make mistakes you know, that doesn't make them liars.

He has a demonstrably proven history of lying. He's been sacked twice for lying. When people don't trust you, because you lie, you find that they simply don't believe in "honest mistakes". His reputation and credibility are in tatters and he has only himself to blame. Well, him and the rest of the Tory party that enable him and his awful propaganda-slogan machine.

He was sacked once for lying over 30 years ago I believe, did you never make a mistake in the past 30 years?

He was demoted by Howard due to a media storm to which Howard later apologised and said he was wrong to sack him. Howard wasn't the best leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

He was sacked once for lying over 30 years ago I believe, did you never make a mistake in the past 30 years?

He was demoted by Howard due to a media storm to which Howard later apologised and said he was wrong to sack him. Howard wasn't the best leader.

---

I've not been sacked for lying, no.

And just because Howard later said he was wrong to sack him, doesn't mean he still didn't lie.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8929076.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-lying-media

Of course, Rand will now claim that all of those were just "honest mistakes".

At some point, Rand, when there's this much smoke, a fire becomes a certainty.

Edit: Hoo, this one's a doozy:

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Channel 4, quite literally the 4th rate news operation in this country, have no right to demand the Prime Minister attends a minor TV event. At the best of times not even the BBC does, the only person who can summon the Prime Minister is Her Majesty the Queen. I don't think any Prime Minister has ever attended a debate on Channel 4 who don't even send journalists to news interviews (they get ITN to do all that legwork). Debates are arranged between the parties and the broadcasters, this debate was not arranged. Channel 4 announced this and the minor parties said they could attend [afterall the real broadcasters are more into head to head debates some of which have already occured than this 7 way nonsense] and Boris said immediately he couldn't attend because he had existing commitments on that date. In case you hadn't noticed there's an election going on right now and he was campaigning in Wales in pre-announced events that were announced before this debate was announced by Channel 4 without them confirming his availability or attendance.

However we don't have a Presidential Election, this is a Parliamentary Election and why Channel 4 are probably in very serious breach of OFCOM regulations with their petulant and childish antics. The media doesn't invite leaders etc they invite parties, they can request the leader but they can't demand it. The Conservatives are entitled to send who they want to represent the party under OFCOM regulations, just as Amber Rudd represented the Tories at a BBC debate last election. Just as tomorrow multiple parties have other MPs taking part in one of the 7-way debates. But to make it worse Channel 4 then said this was a Climate Debate so who better to represent that for the Conservative Party than one of the parties most senior MPs who was until recently the Environment Secretary and is responsible for the parties Climate Policies? Gove is not just a random person he is literally the parties Climate expert who offered himself to take part in what they were calling #ClimateDebate. If they had said this was an economic debate would they have rejected the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking part? Pathetic.

As for the Buzzfeed bullshit from an unnamed source, that is typical Buzzfeed bullshit. In case you didn't know this Channel 4's public sector broadcasting obligations expire in 2024. Its not a threat that the Tories will review them, whoever wins the election will be reviewing them. If the Tories win and don't renew or review them then they will expire automatically.

---

Randblade, post your fucking sources. It's basic courtesy.

I'm sick of spending hours trawling round the internet trying to find where the information you post comes from because literally any factual claim you post needs to be double checked.

I will reply to this once I have links for the factual claims presented.

I have also never been sacked for telling lies.

With De Pfeffel the lies start with his name, and so far it hasn't stopped. One has to wonder if the man is capable of saying anything that's true.

But we should not flatter ourselves to think that RandBlade can be convinced that staunchly supporting a pathological liar will only leave him in tears when it's too late to undo the damage.

The thing about the whole Times thing was that he was then able to just walk straight into a job on the Telegraph, presumably because he knew Max Hastings. Can you imagine almost anyone else scoring a job at a major national newspaper with 'sacked for fabricating a quote while a graduate trainee' on their resume? Like, maybe if he was a long term employee with experience and a track record who just screwed up one time and their Times had to let him go, you could understand another national newspaper taking him on but a graduate with no journalism training or journalism degree who made up a quote inside his first year there? Fucker coasts through life on easy mode and everyone just makes an exception for him for no reason.

He can get his ass in front of Andrew Neil and get grilled like all the other party leaders, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

They're currently a more, ahem, "tax efficient" way for business owners to pay themselves instead of a salary. I guess a lot of small business owners do that, so if they can't do that anymore the economy will implode or something.

The business community always says this will happen whenever a government proposes a law that's going to stop them taking the piss. They did it with the minimum wage, with the ban on tobacco advertising, when they weren't allowed to employ children in their Dickensian smog factories, etc. Somehow they always manage to find a way to carry on anyway.

---

I think you're missing a big part of the reason why dividends are taxed at a lower rate: far fewer people would own/start/invest in a business if their corporate earnings were taxed at the same rate as if they just worked for a big corporation.

When you invest there is a risk, but the upside of that risk is progress, goods and jobs for the wider society. Lower dividend rates put an incentive behind that risk, beyond just the issues of double-taxation.