Off Topic General Election

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
G4rdToonArmy said:
Tbh I don't think it's to dissimilar to asking who would decide if someone is fit to work or not, not a doctor but Kim Jong Il or the bloke at the desk in the job centre obviously? <laugh>

With your previous views I'd have assumed you could have meant any number of people who just simply can't be bothered but fair enough that's a totally reasonable point. If you got the money to support yourself - do whatever you like - no dispute here.

No ones threatening anyone with homelessness - all I'm saying is if you are fit and able to work you can't just pick up free money for nothing - it's up to the individual to decide if they want to work. If you don't want to earn your money via voluntary work you better find it elsewhere, set up an OnlyFans page farting in jars (big money in that apparently), get out and busk on the street - what ever you need to do for yourself, I don't care - but I'm not interested in paying for others to do nothing.

We've already agreed though - if you can work you should work, right?

What I would say is if there were lovely people like yourself and others who want to set up a charity, give up your time and efforts to raise money to help those who cant be arsed to even try - crack on, you're a better man than me <applause>
Click to expand...
But you’re happy for the rich to raid the country for hundreds of billions as opposed to the very few benefit claimants who are sitting idly? Odd take personally
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howe's about that then? and Welshie
Welshie said:
It is dissimilar, you proposed policy and I asked the logistics, you don't like scrutiny.

My previous views <laugh>

In your world, it is absolutely staggering that you would genuinely have a society that gaslights people into "voluntary" work or just says they have no access to public money. Anyone who would hand the government these types of powers is an imbecile, I'm sorry, but you've demonstrated this time and again in your responses.

Pretending we agree when we don't to weasel out, trying to find gotcha questions, equating two points as similar when they're just blatantly not. You've time and again tried to avoid my point entirely tbh, I reckon cos you just did not like that I originally said you're nuts.

Your idea, is genuinely, insane. Because it ignores how useless it would be economically, how logistically impossible it is, how much more it would actually cost, how easily abused it would be. It essentially takes a problem that, in the grand scheme, is minor and inflates it to this complicated, frustrating thing that doesn't even solve it. Just makes different problems.

They do already give people some work experience jobs through the job centre, but it's the logistics of finding out who is genuine and isn't through medical checks and reviews that could lead people to being struck out of the system which is just barmy.

What, we should set up charities? Same logic as if the cost of living gets too high, people should set up food shops while the government does ... **** all?

No, I will just vote for anyone other than the Reform Party and its 80 year old members who think this nonsense, and then donate my tax money to a decent society. <laugh>

Anyway how's everyone's day?
Click to expand...

You asked a ridiculous question with equally ridiculous suggested answers to a question with a very clear and obvious answer. Your statement was entirely vague with no way to decipher who you were talking about in that regard! I've answered every question you've come up with and you've basically resorted to name calling <doh>

Gaslighting? FML there's no trickery or making people believe something that's not true, it's ultra simple and easy to understand - how you equate that to gaslighting - lol. Do you understand the definition?

The whole point is it's easier to control and not sure how you think it'll cost more than to give money away for free?

"What, we should set up charities?" If you want to give money away for nothing do it out of your own pocket. The point is the government would be providing access to work for those who are able to do it instead of just handing out money for nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
G4rdToonArmy said:
You asked a ridiculous question with equally ridiculous suggested answers to a question with a very clear and obvious answer. Your statement was entirely vague with no way to decipher who you were talking about in that regard! I've answered every question you've come up with and you've basically resorted to name calling <doh>

Gaslighting? FML there's no trickery or making people believe something that's not true, it's ultra simple and easy to understand - how you equate that to gaslighting - lol. Do you understand the definition?

The whole point is it's easier to control and not sure how you think it'll cost more than to give money away for free?

"What, we should set up charities?" If you want to give money away for nothing do it out of your own pocket. The point is the government would be providing access to work for those who are able to do it instead of just handing out money for nothing.
Click to expand...

It's not easier control because you're making all this up on the spot and have not been able to genuinely answer a single bit of scrutiny in any way.

How would it be easier to control? They already test people who go on sickness benefit, the people who go to the job centre for job seekers allowance already have to go through hoops to get their money and it's nowhere NEAR the amount you're alluding too

The examples you used earlier, were to be critical of women on single mothers allowance and you DID suggest they should work but won't be useful for much. That's what you said.

I can quote you if you like?

That's why I asked you to be very specific, who the **** would test people and deem them "able to work" doctors ALREADY DO THAT for sickness benefits. Your suggestion changes NOTHING.

So, I had to ask, would it instead be people employed by the job centre then? Or just MORE DOCTORS?

You're only point is that people on job seekers allowance, who are well and able but sit at home apparently mooching, should be given low paid jobs, already being done by people on a real wage.

Job seekers allowance already sends people out to job placements! But you add it with the little extra bonus of, and if they don't want to go there! "Enjoy a park bench" Those were your words <laugh>

But it doesn't answer the issue, that people misuse job seekers like that and the chance of them receiving genuine employment afterwards is slim.
So you're just keeping people perpetually in the system with the added benefit of punishments for failing to comply.

That and flat tax rates. It's just Thatcherism lol.

You couldn't argue against the fact that now, more people in the UK rely on food banks, it's record breaking numbers. Your idea of government wouldn't do a damned thing about it, it would just raise their taxes and not do a thing about our political and business elite stealing

Your solution to that is a flat tax rate that harms the poorest in society.
 
Going to be back in the UK shortly for the Summer so this will be the first time I have voted in a General Election since probably 1987. Interesting trying to understand what each of the parties policies would be if they got in as Manifestos seem hard to find. One thing that strikes me is that the Conservatives are being a lot more proactive in promoting new radical policies (e.g National Service) than Labour, although I think that might be just more to do with the state of the polling and former knowing they have very little to lose whereas latter are scared of dropping a clanger.

Interesting reading some of the views on here on what are key issues to people so here are the things I would want to see from the party I vote for:

1. Utilities/Services - To me there is a clear case for re-nationalisation of the following - water, rail, energy (but only the supply side). It is ridiculous that these companies are able to take profits when they are not providing a decent service at an affordable cost. For those who think it will reduce efficiency to make them state owned, then allow 'profit sharing' across the organisations but based on service provided rather than profits made.

2. Corporate Tax - Need to stop these windfall taxes and replace with higher sliding tax rates for very profitable companies. Should be based on percentage profit though, rather than just a profit number and only apply to companies with profits above say £1million quid. Greater scrutiny of tech companies repatriating profits to low tax countries (e.g. Ireland) to avoid tax in UK.

3. Carbon reduction - They need to stop paying lip service to this and start taking government led action to get there. This should include:
- subsidies to allow everyone to buy/lease electric cars
- a carbon certificate with all imported goods or higher taxes on these to try and encourage big carbon emitting countries to reduce their impact

4. Education - should be essentially free through to end of Tertiary education. Government pays all the fees for UK students. Loans for accommodation available if required but paid back with normal interest rates from completion of course.

5. Immigration - need to start distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, as people seem to confuse the two. For me:

- illegal immigration - take the money we have wasted on the Rwanda scheme and use it to fund better staffing of Border Control. Not to stop the boats but to actually process people landing much quicker and decide whether they are entitled to stay and apply for asylum, or should be shipped home.

- legal migration - there doesn't seem to be an issue here and some of the actions that are being proposed/implemented are ridiculous attempts to massage the numbers:
- banning student dependents from accompanying them (just a numbers exercise as they don't affect anything). They are actually paying an insurance fee to cover medical expenses etc

At the moment looks like my vote will be going to the Libs/Social Democrats as they and the greens are the only ones to have published formal manifestos. The Workers Party has as well but you have to buy a copy (the cheeky twats).
 
JakartaToon said:
Going to be back in the UK shortly for the Summer so this will be the first time I have voted in a General Election since probably 1987. Interesting trying to understand what each of the parties policies would be if they got in as Manifestos seem hard to find. One thing that strikes me is that the Conservatives are being a lot more proactive in promoting new radical policies (e.g National Service) than Labour, although I think that might be just more to do with the state of the polling and former knowing they have very little to lose whereas latter are scared of dropping a clanger.

Interesting reading some of the views on here on what are key issues to people so here are the things I would want to see from the party I vote for:

1. Utilities/Services - To me there is a clear case for re-nationalisation of the following - water, rail, energy (but only the supply side). It is ridiculous that these companies are able to take profits when they are not providing a decent service at an affordable cost. For those who think it will reduce efficiency to make them state owned, then allow 'profit sharing' across the organisations but based on service provided rather than profits made.

2. Corporate Tax - Need to stop these windfall taxes and replace with higher sliding tax rates for very profitable companies. Should be based on percentage profit though, rather than just a profit number and only apply to companies with profits above say £1million quid. Greater scrutiny of tech companies repatriating profits to low tax countries (e.g. Ireland) to avoid tax in UK.

3. Carbon reduction - They need to stop paying lip service to this and start taking government led action to get there. This should include:
- subsidies to allow everyone to buy/lease electric cars
- a carbon certificate with all imported goods or higher taxes on these to try and encourage big carbon emitting countries to reduce their impact

4. Education - should be essentially free through to end of Tertiary education. Government pays all the fees for UK students. Loans for accommodation available if required but paid back with normal interest rates from completion of course.

5. Immigration - need to start distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, as people seem to confuse the two. For me:

- illegal immigration - take the money we have wasted on the Rwanda scheme and use it to fund better staffing of Border Control. Not to stop the boats but to actually process people landing much quicker and decide whether they are entitled to stay and apply for asylum, or should be shipped home.

- legal migration - there doesn't seem to be an issue here and some of the actions that are being proposed/implemented are ridiculous attempts to massage the numbers:
- banning student dependents from accompanying them (just a numbers exercise as they don't affect anything). They are actually paying an insurance fee to cover medical expenses etc

At the moment looks like my vote will be going to the Libs/Social Democrats as they and the greens are the only ones to have published formal manifestos. The Workers Party has as well but you have to buy a copy (the cheeky twats).
Click to expand...

Jak for PM as far as I am concerned
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakartaToon
Delusional Full Stop said:
But think of all the brown bags.

<diva>
Click to expand...
Brown bags require paper. Paper comes from trees….. Jak has decided to go green. So from now on all “donations” have to be sent in sacks made from hemp that were grown without the use of lights or fertilisers or pesticides.

I would say just bank transfer it but then he’d just take his Ill gotten gains over to some cheaper tax dodge country like Ireland, whilst his servants were all stopped by the hundreds of border patrol police whilst he boards his electric powered ferry across to Micks house
 
I don't think Jak will be able to balance his mod responsibilities and the PM position tbh.

I'm sure this takes up a lot of his time
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakartaToon
Welshie said:
I don't think Jak will be able to balance his mod responsibilities and the PM position tbh.

I'm sure this takes up a lot of his time
Click to expand...
That's a fair point, I hadn't thought about the inevitable conflicts of interest and time pressures
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back