And a sign they are tiring of him is here: Another interesting point: Betfair odds on his making it to the end of his presidency exactly equal the odds of his not making it that far. All offered as a public service. Breitbart seems to have missed those two snippets, so I'm just putting it out there for anyone using them as a source. Vin
They won't need to. Globalisation has their back and Labour and the Lib Dems are still on the globalisation boat. The rich will find more ways to earn here and pay their taxes elsewhere..........or more ways to earn without earning IYKWIM
Unbelievable! and I defended you 2 days ago. Taxing them a bit more will not send them to the Bahamas or to soup kitchens. Their money could actually be put to use to give YOU an NHS and your children an education and they'd still have enough left over to buy the odd island in the Bahamas. Why on earth would you want super rich people doing nothing with their money? Theresa needs that cash to bail out corrupt banks and buy some new nukes (and if there's a bit left over maybe the odd new hospital)
These are all arguments trotted out ad infinitum by the hunting lobby. You over-estimate the threat posed by foxes to domestic poultry etc. a million times. There are active foxes in my neighbourhood, so anyone with hens, ducks etc. makes sure they are securely penned in, job done. Foxes are carnivores and opportunistic hunters, that's what's hard wired into them. You can't judge them in the same way you can a human being, of course they will kill every hen in a henhouse if you give them the chance, you just don't give them that chance unless you are stupid. And then you go and shoot your whole argument down in flames with the killer "nature finds a balance". That is self-evidently true, as the rural fox population hasn't increased significantly since hunting was banned. So, the evidence points to the fact that nature's balance doesn't include twerps on horseback pursuing foxes with dogs. Yes, I said dogs, because hounds are a breed of dog, not some mythical, Arthurian legend kind of beast. Any way you look at it, fox hunting is not about controlling a non-existent threat, but entirely about the pleasure gained by sadistic idiots who think it's cool to chase wild animals. Believe me, because I know this, the vast majority of people who live in the country think that hunting is cruel and unnecessary, and the only reason a lot of them aren't more vocally opposed to fox hunting is because they are employed by landowners who are pro-hunting. Back in the days of the Countryside Alliance, and the big rallies held in protest about the ban, I spoke to people who were paid by their landowning employers to attend the rallies, and threatened with dismissal and eviction from their homes if they didn't. And you haven't addressed my point about urban foxes, which are close to outnumbering rural foxes if they don't actually outnumber them, mainly because of the vast amounts of food we humans simply chuck in bins and on rubbish tips. And that's a whole other argument!
The railways will pay for themselves. They are currently the most expensive in Europe, with profits and dividends going to shareholders while capital expenses are underwritten by the taxpayer via Network Rail.
Yesterday, I mentioned that Trump's fortune hang in large part on Rod Rosenstein, the new deputy AG who has no particular connections to Trump. Today, it turns out that Trump/Sessions pointing the finger at Rosenstein over Comey's firing led him to threaten to resign. He has been on the job for two weeks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html It's a blessing that these people are even more idiotic than they are evil.
Being able to move money wherever you want, hide it away and pay your taxes wherever you set up your one man head office.
The same can be said about cats killing birds so why are foxes being chased, tortured then torn to pieces but not cats? Is it because they're killing people's property? Well, fence in your property properly and the fox can't get in - people blame a wild animal rather than blaming their own laziness or naivete. As Chilco says, your last four words totally defeat your argument - if nature does find a balance (which I believe it does) then why are humans sticking their noses in to cause an imbalance of nature, we do far too much of that as it is...
My mate eventually had to stop keeping chickens in his garden because he couldn't keep the fox out. Mind you, he lived in Tottenham, so I doubt the hunt would have helped.
Wow! That will teach me to make a flippant comment. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax This article in the Guardian on France's success with tax laws will explain (I hope) my remark.
But you could also add to that with the increase in corporation tax taking since the coalition reduced the rate in 2010 compared to when it was much higher under Labour. Even the BBC guy pointed this out yesterday but then of course added "although you cannot always trust forecasts because sometimes they are wrong" which they add after any report where it isn't doom and gloom.
Isn't the plan for Labour to increase corporation tax as well by about 8% (ish)? Yes here it is. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...oration-tax-schools-economy-ifs-jeremy-corbyn
To be honest the problem is that it is a perfect manifesto. Lots of stuff that normal people love the sound of. The problem however is practicality and reality. These things either can;t be done or won't work. I think it is called populism when it is right wing. If the leak of Labour's manifesto is accurate then most people would probably agree with all of it. However the reality is that raising the corp tax to the rate they want will drive off tax intake if not immediately in the future and that re-nationalising the railways and post office might not achieve what they want to achieve if it ends up costing the tax payer anyway to have these infrastructures within the state as well as us paying as we do now. Bills might come down but the cost of state running it might go upward and thus the combined price rises. He is also promising more for education, more for the NHS which are great ideas however where is that money coming from. And then scrapping tuition fees which means that 3x the free uni places since we last had completely free university. Like I say it is the perfect manifesto and has all the good ideas in there that should make most people happy without taking reality into account that you have to be able to pay for things with money. Populism at it's best.
Like Labour's 1945 manifesto you mean? Despite the incessant rolling back of the welfare state since 1979 ordinary working people are still receiving the benefits of that manifesto. From the Cradle to the Grave, was the slogan. Meaning we will provide for the basic needs of all our people. Because we are a rich nation on a rich continent and we can afford to do it. It's called redistribution of wealth. Because we're all in it together, right?
I'm not sure the Labour manifesto will prove that popular. Putting in the one policy of nationalising the railways might have worked but the sheer scale of what they're proposing would be unrealistic and off-putting in normal times. How they could possibly do all of what they say while negotiating our exit from the EU I simply don't know. These sort of policies were voted down (heavily) in the 70s and 80s and I don't think there will be much of an increase in their popularity today. I've heard a few interviews now where reporters have gone to Labour heartlands and found local people saying things along the lines of "I agree with Corbyn in theory but his ideas don't work in the real world. He's living in the past. I've always voted Labour but I'm thinking of voting Tory this time. My dad would go mad if he was still alive."
