Tory party DOCTORED Starmer interview

And compounded it by the Tory press office LIED by saying it was a true story.

Tories unrepentant over misleadingly edited Keir Starmer TV footage

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/05/tories-unrepentant-about-doctored-video-of-keir-starmer-tv-appearance?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The morality of this conservative party has set a low bar, and still manages to sink under it.

Truly only fucking morons will vote for this shower of shit.
First Rees Mogg
Then Brigden
Add on Cummings
Then withholding the Russian interference report.

How much lower will they sink?

Watched that interview, you obviously watched something else , he was "owned by" all the panel, so away with your bullshit !

nicko wrote:Watched that interview, you obviously watched something else , he was "owned by" all the panel, so away with your bullshit !

I watched it too and that is not the impression I got.

The edit is clearly meant to make it look like he stalled and faltered, which he most certainly didn't. He may not have given the hosts the simple one word answer they were digging for, but nor did he have to, as that would've been spun anyway.

The edit is more smear attempts and dis-ingenuity that has become tragically normalised by first the Leave campaign and now the shameless, dispicable Tories, who are using every dirty trick to win the gullible the angry and the naive to their side.

Old people are SO gullible.
Nicko believes every fake yarn spun by his beloved but smear ridden and corrupt Tory party. Why ARE so many MPs dropping out, claiming they cannot support the lurch to the right the Tory party is taking?
Ed Vazey is the latest.

Well you would say that, your not biased are you by any chance ?

nicko wrote:Well you would say that, your not biased are you by any chance ?

To be fair you admitted to reading the Sun and the Mail everyday. And you do tend to regurgitate their views on just about everything. So whatever they print you believe, at least it would seem.

well its really rather simple init....

If you have two ha'pennies to rub together DONT vote for corbyn, because he will take them off you and give you a farthing back then give the rest to either the feckless or the incommer.

that shower of shite would rob everyone who has worked for their home and estate and leave them nothing to pass to their children/grand children

As I said earlier i'd sooner piss it all up the wall than let THEM get their hands on it.

the only supporters of THAT vileness are the have nowt, never had nowt, wont work for owt brigade. The feckless useless and foreign
who lets face it are the only ones (aside from certain labour party members of course) who would benefit (via benefits naturally).


I worked for what I have, damn hard at times and paid tax on it THEN....there can be NO moral justification to tax it yet again.
unless of course you are a lefty idiot with nothing, jealous of those who actually made their way, envious of anyone with a decent home etc, THEN of course you can justify robbery

Vic.
Yet another gullible oldie spoon fed lies, spin and crap from his lords and masters at the rw press, and lo and behold, he falls for it.
I wonder whether any of MY posts will be "doctored"?

Tory election launch day not entirely going to plan.
The apology of a party has endured TWO!!! apologies about Grenfell, firstly from the crass idiot Rees-Mogg, and now from his chum Brigden.
1 is unfortunate. 2 in a morning is a disaster.

That was followed up by the car crash interview by Piers Morgan, and the even worse (non) interview by Kay Burley who interviewed his empty chair after she warned him she would give him sme torrid questions.

Oh dear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50314112

Victorismyhero wrote:well its really rather simple init....

If you have two ha'pennies to rub together DONT vote for corbyn, because he will take them off you and give you a farthing back then give the rest to either the feckless or the incommer.

that shower of shite would rob everyone who has worked for their home and estate and leave them nothing to pass to their children/grand children

As I said earlier i'd sooner piss it all up the wall than let THEM get their hands on it.

the only supporters of THAT vileness are the have nowt, never had nowt, wont work for owt brigade. The feckless useless and foreign
who lets face it are the only ones (aside from certain labour party members of course) who would benefit (via benefits naturally).


I worked for what I have, damn hard at times and paid tax on it THEN....there can be NO moral justification to tax it yet again.
unless of course you are a lefty idiot with nothing, jealous of those who actually made their way, envious of anyone with a decent home etc, THEN of course you can justify robbery

How then do you explain well off working people and rich people who also vote Labour

those...have their money "elsewhere" untouchable by uk tax, champaign socialists , hypocrits want "marxism for everyone...except themselves

andy.................... so the £125,000 inheritance tax isnt going to happen then? at the promised outrageous rates....

funny I thought that was one of their central tenets>


as I said ...if it happens , for the first time in my life i will indulge in whatever lawful tax avoidance I can, and simply spend the rest...

and I wont be voting for that creature...

Boris is bad
corbyn is detestable

Andy wrote:Vic.
Yet another gullible oldie spoon fed lies, spin and crap from his lords and masters at the rw press, and lo and behold, he falls for it.

I wonder whether any of MY posts will be "doctored"?

No, but if you dont stop with the passive aggressive, poor little me being a twat you might find a ban heading your way...try growing up...it helps

https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/701198197031137/?sfnsn=mo&d=n&vh=e

Victorismyhero wrote:

Andy wrote:Vic.
Yet another gullible oldie spoon fed lies, spin and crap from his lords and masters at the rw press, and lo and behold, he falls for it.

I wonder whether any of MY posts will be "doctored"?

No, but if you dont stop with the passive aggressive, poor little me being a twat you might find a ban heading your way...try growing up...it helps

I would simply request Les or Ben to overturn what would be a ludicrous decision on your part.
I was simply pointing out that Tories are strong advocates of doctoring things into false statements.
God knows, there are few enough posters here already. And even fewer who start threads and contribute more than the occasional '+1'.
Where is 'passive agressive', whatever that is?

well well, what should we expect from andy, I knew his education was suspect but to not know the meanings and implications of being passive aggressive must make him a huge disappointment to his lefty masters. After all, it IS one of the trademark lefty traits.

oh and stop setting up the satge for yet more of your lies....I have never "doctored" posts...deleted, part deleted, and locked maybe....but doctored NO and the only parts that have ever been deleted or part deleted were your many and persistant childish attempts to star a flame war.
So shove it and as said grow up and grow a pair

NOW andy how about answering, rather than swerving my question

Is or is not the £125,000 limit for death duty, policy or intended policy or NOT?

Victorismyhero wrote:those...have their money "elsewhere" untouchable by uk tax, champaign socialists , hypocrits want "marxism for everyone...except themselves

andy.................... so the £125,000 inheritance tax isnt going to happen then? at the promised outrageous rates....

funny I thought that was one of their central tenets>


as I said ...if it happens , for the first time in my life i will indulge in whatever lawful tax avoidance I can, and simply spend the rest...

and I wont be voting for that creature...

Boris is bad
corbyn is detestable

Plenty of well off middle class people vote Labour and you know it, you're just weaving a narrative to make it easier.

And of course there's another typical line trotted out - champagne socialists...

According to some if you're young and Left you're naive, old and you're a Marxist dinosaur.
Poor and you're envious, rich and you're a champagne socialist.

If millions are to the Left and they are young, old, rich and poor, perhaps they are none of the above. Perhaps we just have a point

And perhaps your biased, being a Labour supporter, yes ?

and likewise...you swerve the question

is or is not the £125,000 death duty policy, intended policy or not?

what Corbyn Really wants your inheritance for

remember that terrorists tart Begum?

the one corbyn wanted to bring "home"

and set up with a nice flat and everything ...at YOUR expense?

ALSO....

I have just heard this dollop of nonsense

apparantly if the death duty was set to £125 all the extra money "could" (note that ...could....) be used to ensure that people dont lose their home if they need to go into care in later life as it could fund ....and this is the laughable bit...properly run council homes...

yeah right labours record on council run care for children doesnt fill anyone with confidence...what chance would the elderly and infirm have ..elder abuse is bad enough NOW in some care home...pass them to a labour run council and you might as well relable them slaughter houses.

can you imagine ..a concerned relative complains to the police that granny is being beaten the police response...shut up or we will arrest you

I have NO idea, as I am a paid member of the Liberal Democratic party.
It isn't planned to be in our manifesto.
I didn't say YOU had or would doctor my posts. But I certainly wouldn't be surprised to get basemented for no clear reason by you . But all that would do is reduce the number of posters and posts and reduce the moderator/poster ratio to about 3/1.
I can understand you Tories being understandably twitchy and sensitive, given the appalling start to the campaign you have made, with car crash radio interviews by Rees-Mogg and Brigden, the dismal and embarrassing show , then no show by not so Cleverly, the resignation of the Welsh secretary, the cover up of the report on Russian interference, all under the 'astute' guidance of the non elected Kremlin plant Cummings.
IF I were Johnson, I would be more concerned with Farage's Brexit party than spending a fortune on front page smear stories on the opposition parties in the Torygraph.
Voters are more astute , politically savvy and educated than they were in the era that Tories aspire to emulate. They can see through the lies , spin, fake news and downright bullshit by fact checking everything politicians say.

Andy wrote:Vic.
Yet another gullible oldie spoon fed lies, spin and crap from his lords and masters at the rw press, and lo and behold, he falls for it.

I wonder whether any of MY posts will be "doctored"?

you reference me then made that statement
so YES you WERE implying that I had or would doctor your posts

and you said i am being spoon fed lies SO

if that is the case ...you MUST, by that statement know different as to whether the £125,000 death duty limit is policy or not

stop swerving OR stop making ridiculous assumptions

nicko wrote:And perhaps your biased, being a Labour supporter,  yes ?

I'm not a Labour supporter. Never have been. I'll probably vote Labour this time for the chance to get a second referendum. But that does not make me a 'supporter'.

But you ignore that, cause it doesn't fit your Daily Mail spoon fed narrative

Whose policy?
I rarely read in depth the rw rags that the Conservatives do and are spoon fed the crap they spew out.
I stick to the BBC, the Guardian and Sky news. Between them, they invariably produce something close to the truth.

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:And perhaps your biased, being a Labour supporter,  yes ?

I'm not a Labour supporter. Never have been. I'll probably vote Labour this time for the chance to get a second referendum. But that does not make me a 'supporter'.

But you ignore that, cause it doesn't fit your Daily Mail spoon fed narrative

so just for the sake of one policy you will vote in a party who's other policies spell ruin?

well i guess then its ok for me to vote for the torys on the basis
I want out
I want to keep my right to hold a gun
I want to be able to give my grandkids a bit of a start in life
I want to be able to continue fishing (tho anti fishing is a policy more of the greens/lib dums)
I'd like to keep my own private pension (which i paid for ON TOP OF the national pension)
I dont want to be reduced to a labour govt dependent. grovelling for every hand out

Victorismyhero wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

nicko wrote:And perhaps your biased, being a Labour supporter,  yes ?

I'm not a Labour supporter. Never have been. I'll probably vote Labour this time for the chance to get a second referendum. But that does not make me a 'supporter'.

But you ignore that, cause it doesn't fit your Daily Mail spoon fed narrative

so just for the sake of one policy you will vote in a party who's other policies spell ruin?

well i guess then its ok for me to vote for the torys on the basis
I want out
I want to keep my right to hold a gun
I want to be able to give my grandkids a bit of a start in life
I want to be able to continue fishing (tho anti fishing is a policy more of the greens/lib dums)
I'd like to keep my own private pension (which i paid for ON TOP OF the national pension)
I dont want to be reduced to a labour govt dependent. grovelling for every hand out

Not just one policy, I also support nationalisation of the rail network and believe the NHS would be better protected by the Labour party. I also stand by the view that no party could harm the UK economy greater than Brexit would.

That said, I generally think the Labour front bench is a mess, but then the same is true of Johnson's. It really is a case of the least worst option this time.

Les, we have already had a referendum , but you, along with millions of others want another one. Now it's obvious why, you want remain to win, well, Leave won so suck it up ,not very Democratic of you is it ?

Victorismyhero wrote:

Andy wrote:Vic.
Yet another gullible oldie spoon fed lies, spin and crap from his lords and masters at the rw press, and lo and behold, he falls for it.

I wonder whether any of MY posts will be "doctored"?

you reference me then made that statement
so YES you WERE implying that I had or would doctor your posts

and you said i am being spoon fed lies SO

if that is the case ...you MUST, by that statement know different as to whether the £125,000 death duty limit is policy or not

stop swerving OR stop making ridiculous assumptions

So far as I know the only indication of Labour's plans for inheritance tax reform was in the form of a report on one of John McDonnell's speeches in which he said that the current tax regime would be replaced by a "lifetime gift allowance" of £185,000, after which everything - cash, investments and assets - would be taxed at full IHT rates.

At present, IHT is levied at 40% on the deceased's estate valued at more than £325,000, or double that if one spouse had already died and his or her allowance had been rolled over to the survivor. No tax is currently payable on a spouse's bequest to a legally-recognised partner.

The proposed eye-watering allowance reduction will be virtually confiscatory in that it does not take into account post mortem assets, but only the total
monetary value of everything that the deceased has given away in his or her lifetime!

It is, of course, utterly unworkable...unless estate executors have a full list of every cash gift, birthday or Christmas present, monetary help to family and friends, etc., etc, during the entire lifetime of the deceased.

This implies two things, if Labour wins the election. Every one of us, from childhood, will be forced to record every penny that is disposed of under the all-embracing regulations, not only for the current statutory seven year period for which records have to be kept but also from birth. And secondly, that anyone appointed an executor of an estate will have to accept legal responsibility for ensuring both access to and accuracy of the records in order to obtain probate and distribute any allowable bequests in accordance with the law.

I have already acted as executor of two estates, and it was unbelievably bureaucratic and time consuming. Dealing with HMRC was like trying to wade through a lake of treacle.

I am convinced that the actual objective of Momentum-controlled Labour is to make estate executorship such an onerous and dangerous chalice that no-one in their right minds will accept it, and that all of us who cannot afford clever and expensive tax lawyers and accountants will die intestate.

Which would mean, of course, that everything that we own...our homes, cars, clothes, savings, investments and goods and chattels down to our underpants will be subject to confiscation by the state.

You think I'm joking? Then go ahead and put that puppet Corbyn and the Marxist bastard McDonnell into numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street....

+1

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

you reference me then made that statement
so YES you WERE implying that I had or would doctor your posts

and you said i am being spoon fed lies SO

if that is the case ...you MUST, by that statement know different as to whether the £125,000 death duty limit is policy or not

stop swerving OR stop making ridiculous assumptions

So far as I know the only indication of Labour's plans for inheritance tax reform was in the form of a report on one of John McDonnell's speeches in which he said that the current tax regime would be replaced by a "lifetime gift allowance" of £185,000, after which everything - cash, investments and assets - would be taxed at full IHT rates.

At present, IHT is levied at 40% on the deceased's estate valued at more than £325,000, or double that if one spouse had already died and his or her allowance had been rolled over to the survivor. No tax is currently payable on a spouse's bequest to a legally-recognised partner.

The proposed eye-watering allowance reduction will be virtually confiscatory in that it does not take into account post mortem assets, but only the total
monetary value of everything that the deceased has given away in his or her lifetime!

It is, of course, utterly unworkable...unless estate executors have a full list of every cash gift, birthday or Christmas present, monetary help to family and friends, etc., etc, during the entire lifetime of the deceased.

This implies two things, if Labour wins the election. Every one of us, from childhood, will be forced to record every penny that is disposed of under the all-embracing regulations, not only for the current statutory seven year period for which records have to be kept but also from birth. And secondly, that anyone appointed an executor of an estate will have to accept legal responsibility for ensuring both access to and accuracy of the records in order to obtain probate and distribute any allowable bequests in accordance with the law.

I have already acted as executor of two estates, and it was unbelievably bureaucratic and time consuming. Dealing with HMRC was like trying to wade through a lake of treacle.

I am convinced that the actual objective of Momentum-controlled Labour is to make estate executorship such an onerous and dangerous chalice that no-one in their right minds will accept it, and that all of us who cannot afford clever and expensive tax lawyers and accountants will die intestate.

Which would mean, of course, that everything that we own...our homes, cars, clothes, savings, investments and goods and chattels down to our underpants will be subject to confiscation by the state.

You think I'm joking? Then go ahead and put that puppet Corbyn and the Marxist bastard McDonnell into numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street....

The vast majority of folks are not wealthy enough to be affected by the 40% inheritance rules. They are specifically geared to a certain income bracket. Which is not to say they are right or wrong but they don't generally affect the common man.

Echoes of project fear here. Both sides trading horror stories and scary propaganda.

As far as I know ,never seen leavers spreading fear, that's the prerogative of the remainers. But, of course if i'm wrong please give example and I'll apologise !

Fred Moletrousers wrote: -----

I have already acted as executor of two estates, and it was unbelievably bureaucratic and time consuming. Dealing with HMRC was like trying to wade through a lake of treacle ...….

Whatever the complaint or moan or gripe, it's worth remembering that …………..

the reason for current state of affairs - economics, employment health, education, etc - can be SQUARELY laid at the door of whatever party has been in power for decades, uninterrupted.
Clue - not Labour!

BULL S++t !Who left the note, "sorry, there's no money left" ? Did you miss this ?

It's beyond pathetic to cling on to that limp, ancient excuse, cuts no ice with me.

You think it's a lie then ?

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

you reference me then made that statement
so YES you WERE implying that I had or would doctor your posts

and you said i am being spoon fed lies SO

if that is the case ...you MUST, by that statement know different as to whether the £125,000 death duty limit is policy or not

stop swerving OR stop making ridiculous assumptions

So far as I know the only indication of Labour's plans for inheritance tax reform was in the form of a report on one of John McDonnell's speeches in which he said that the current tax regime would be replaced by a "lifetime gift allowance" of £185,000, after which everything - cash, investments and assets - would be taxed at full IHT rates.

At present, IHT is levied at 40% on the deceased's estate valued at more than £325,000, or double that if one spouse had already died and his or her allowance had been rolled over to the survivor. No tax is currently payable on a spouse's bequest to a legally-recognised partner.

The proposed eye-watering allowance reduction will be virtually confiscatory in that it does not take into account post mortem assets, but only the total
monetary value of everything that the deceased has given away in his or her lifetime!

It is, of course, utterly unworkable...unless estate executors have a full list of every cash gift, birthday or Christmas present, monetary help to family and friends, etc., etc, during the entire lifetime of the deceased.

This implies two things, if Labour wins the election. Every one of us, from childhood, will be forced to record every penny that is disposed of under the all-embracing regulations, not only for the current statutory seven year period for which records have to be kept but also from birth. And secondly, that anyone appointed an executor of an estate will have to accept legal responsibility for ensuring both access to and accuracy of the records in order to obtain probate and distribute any allowable bequests in accordance with the law.

I have already acted as executor of two estates, and it was unbelievably bureaucratic and time consuming. Dealing with HMRC was like trying to wade through a lake of treacle.

I am convinced that the actual objective of Momentum-controlled Labour is to make estate executorship such an onerous and dangerous chalice that no-one in their right minds will accept it, and that all of us who cannot afford clever and expensive tax lawyers and accountants will die intestate.

Which would mean, of course, that everything that we own...our homes, cars, clothes, savings, investments and goods and chattels down to our underpants will be subject to confiscation by the state.

You think I'm joking? Then go ahead and put that puppet Corbyn and the Marxist bastard McDonnell into numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street....

The vast majority of folks are not wealthy enough to be affected by the 40% inheritance rules. They are specifically geared to a certain income bracket. Which is not to say they are right or wrong but they don't generally affect the common man.

Echoes of project fear here. Both sides trading horror stories and scary propaganda.

except you bury your head in the sand and hide from the following

"The proposed eye-watering allowance reduction will be virtually confiscatory in that it does not take into account post mortem assets, but only the total
monetary value of everything that the deceased has given away in his or her lifetime!"

and

"It is, of course, utterly unworkable...unless estate executors have a full list of every cash gift, birthday or Christmas present, monetary help to family and friends, etc., etc, during the entire lifetime of the deceased."

the inheritance tax, instigated to help pay for WW! is an out dated and wrongful tax. in your life you have paid tax on EVERYTHING you own at least twice over , once on the money you are spending then VAT or duty or whatever, in the case of property there is "stamp duty"  tax onthe building and vat on any and all maintennece/ improvement.


so WHY should you have to pay ONE PENNY in yet another tax for the pleasure of quitting this earth?

this issue is just more of the disgusting lefty "class warfare" and the race to the bottom.
you EVEN have leftys that advocate the ridiculous and absurd and cruel idea that pensioners should be removed from their home (by either fiscal or physical means) and MADE to exist in some miniscule little rabbit hole, Quote "more suited to their purpose" presumably so some young benefit grabbing couple can take over their home with their 12 kids by 25 fathers to continue breeding

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

So far as I know the only indication of Labour's plans for inheritance tax reform was in the form of a report on one of John McDonnell's speeches in which he said that the current tax regime would be replaced by a "lifetime gift allowance" of £185,000, after which everything - cash, investments and assets - would be taxed at full IHT rates.

At present, IHT is levied at 40% on the deceased's estate valued at more than £325,000, or double that if one spouse had already died and his or her allowance had been rolled over to the survivor. No tax is currently payable on a spouse's bequest to a legally-recognised partner.

The proposed eye-watering allowance reduction will be virtually confiscatory in that it does not take into account post mortem assets, but only the total
monetary value of everything that the deceased has given away in his or her lifetime!

It is, of course, utterly unworkable...unless estate executors have a full list of every cash gift, birthday or Christmas present, monetary help to family and friends, etc., etc, during the entire lifetime of the deceased.

This implies two things, if Labour wins the election. Every one of us, from childhood, will be forced to record every penny that is disposed of under the all-embracing regulations, not only for the current statutory seven year period for which records have to be kept but also from birth. And secondly, that anyone appointed an executor of an estate will have to accept legal responsibility for ensuring both access to and accuracy of the records in order to obtain probate and distribute any allowable bequests in accordance with the law.

I have already acted as executor of two estates, and it was unbelievably bureaucratic and time consuming. Dealing with HMRC was like trying to wade through a lake of treacle.

I am convinced that the actual objective of Momentum-controlled Labour is to make estate executorship such an onerous and dangerous chalice that no-one in their right minds will accept it, and that all of us who cannot afford clever and expensive tax lawyers and accountants will die intestate.

Which would mean, of course, that everything that we own...our homes, cars, clothes, savings, investments and goods and chattels down to our underpants will be subject to confiscation by the state.

You think I'm joking? Then go ahead and put that puppet Corbyn and the Marxist bastard McDonnell into numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street....

The vast majority of folks are not wealthy enough to be affected by the 40% inheritance rules. They are specifically geared to a certain income bracket. Which is not to say they are right or wrong but they don't generally affect the common man.

Echoes of project fear here. Both sides trading horror stories and scary propaganda.

Unless the proposed lifetime gift allowance is hugely increased anyone owning even a modest house would be dragged into the 40% tax rate, most likely by a considerable margin (and that is now; my guess is that it would be increased under Corbyn and co).

What you appear to be dismissing as "project fear" is simply a statement of an inconvenient truth, and I can only assume that you are content to have your savings, goods and chattels confiscated from your loved ones after you shuffle off this mortal coil. Very noble of you, but I for one am already making sure that the impact on my family will be minimised.

Jules wrote:It's beyond pathetic to cling on to that limp, ancient excuse, cuts no ice with me.

It may well "cut no ice" with you, Jules, given your party allegiance, but it is not an excuse, and neither is it "limp" (Liam Byne himself admitted that it was a stupid thing to write, but significantly never denied the accuracy of it) nor "ancient" (May 2010).

Labour left a post-war record national debt and deficit, and no matter how much the party would like to see history re-written, in that pretty dire economic situation lay the roots of the years of austerity that we have suffered since.

And that is NOT party political point scoring on my part because I am a member of no party, and never have been, and I voted Labour in 1997 and on at least two other occasions before then.

Eilzel wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:well its really rather simple init....

If you have two ha'pennies to rub together DONT vote for corbyn, because he will take them off you and give you a farthing back then give the rest to either the feckless or the incommer.

that shower of shite would rob everyone who has worked for their home and estate and leave them nothing to pass to their children/grand children

As I said earlier i'd sooner piss it all up the wall than let THEM get their hands on it.

the only supporters of THAT vileness are the have nowt, never had nowt, wont work for owt brigade. The feckless useless and foreign
who lets face it are the only ones (aside from certain labour party members of course) who would benefit (via benefits naturally).


I worked for what I have, damn hard at times and paid tax on it THEN....there can be NO moral justification to tax it yet again.
unless of course you are a lefty idiot with nothing, jealous of those who actually made their way, envious of anyone with a decent home etc, THEN of course you can justify robbery

How then do you explain well off working people and rich people who also vote Labour

Those that support Labour or Corbynism mate?

The former will be to years held beliefs on doing what they believe as right. The well of and rich labour supporters you speak of. Are generally the most clueless of them all. Being as they rided through college on daddy and mommies money. Were indoctrinated with a really perverse and denialist diet of loving communism. Where they have never ever suffered any actual hardship. But want to be seen as likelable for being woke and progressive. Never for o0nce unstanding that this form or progression. Comes at a massive cost in human life

These are part times socialits that want to look morally right, but in reality spend most of their time actually looking down on the poor.
They seek control, as they have been fed a diet of self self flagellation.

If they really cared, they would give most of their money to the poor or even homeless and in reality. The majority never do

Go figure

This is all about the new form of being a role model.

That being incredible stupid and being as extreme as people can get in wokeness. Will garner them popularity points. That is how sadly students think emotionally when their brains have not developed. Where even worse, that they are incapable of understanding they were brainwashed in highed education. By a few minor far left educators. Who have a plan to brainwash the elite in education in society. To further their own waped regressive beliefs.

As why again it is this sub set group that you speak of. That we are not actually helping them overcome years of groomming by far leftist ideology?

If many professors in college or university were being apologists for nazism and the far right. Making students believe that the horros of nazism was misplaced and they are being hard done by. I would not hesitate in calling out what I would see as abuse and indoctrination of children through a view to teach nazism was okay. Tio downplay the attrocities. Yet with Communism, this is actually down played by Professors. Its agurd as better. Those same professors never argued as neutral

So that is how your sub set group is formed. Normally from a group that has had no understanding of hardship. As they will never live this way or understand this?

this sums up labour in its entirity and JC in particular

Victorismyhero wrote:
this sums up labour in its entirity and JC in particular

+1

nicko wrote:As far as I know ,never seen leavers spreading fear, that's the prerogative of the remainers. But, of course if i'm wrong please give example and I'll apologise !

Ha!

How about these:

The UK armed forces will be forced to join an EU army.
Millions of Turks will flood the UK when they join the EU.
The EU is a dictatorship.

Just the biggest examples of fear mongering BS

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:well its really rather simple init....

If you have two ha'pennies to rub together DONT vote for corbyn, because he will take them off you and give you a farthing back then give the rest to either the feckless or the incommer.

that shower of shite would rob everyone who has worked for their home and estate and leave them nothing to pass to their children/grand children

As I said earlier i'd sooner piss it all up the wall than let THEM get their hands on it.

the only supporters of THAT vileness are the have nowt, never had nowt, wont work for owt brigade. The feckless useless and foreign
who lets face it are the only ones (aside from certain labour party members of course) who would benefit (via benefits naturally).


I worked for what I have, damn hard at times and paid tax on it THEN....there can be NO moral justification to tax it yet again.
unless of course you are a lefty idiot with nothing, jealous of those who actually made their way, envious of anyone with a decent home etc, THEN of course you can justify robbery

How then do you explain well off working people and rich people who also vote Labour

Those that support Labour or Corbynism mate?

The former will be to years held beliefs on doing what they believe as right. The well of and rich labour supporters you speak of. Are generally the most clueless of them all. Being as they rided through college on daddy and mommies money. Were indoctrinated with a really perverse and denialist diet of loving communism. Where they have never ever suffered any actual hardship. But want to be seen as likelable for being woke and progressive. Never for o0nce unstanding that this form or progression. Comes at a massive cost in human life

These are part times socialits that want to look morally right, but in reality spend most of their time actually looking down on the poor.
They seek control, as they have been fed a diet of self self flagellation.

If they really cared, they would give most of their money to the poor or even homeless and in reality. The majority never do

Go figure

This is all about the new form of being a role model.

That being incredible stupid and being as extreme as people can get in wokeness. Will garner them popularity points. That is how sadly students think emotionally when their brains have not developed. Where even worse, that they are incapable of understanding they were brainwashed in highed education. By a few minor far left educators. Who have a plan to brainwash the elite in education in society. To further their own waped regressive beliefs.

As why again it is this sub set group that you speak of. That we are not actually helping them overcome years of groomming by far leftist ideology?

If many professors in college or university were being apologists for nazism and the far right. Making students believe that the horros of nazism was misplaced and they are being hard done by. I would not hesitate in calling out what I would see as abuse and indoctrination of children through a view to teach nazism was okay. Tio downplay the attrocities. Yet with Communism, this is actually down played by Professors. Its agurd as better. Those same professors never argued as neutral

So that is how your sub set group is formed. Normally from a group that has had no understanding of hardship. As they will never live this way or understand this?

I could make a list of stereotypical Tory voters, straw men, etc, but don't see the point.

Labour usually garner, for better or worse, the most or second most number of votes in election. Not all of them are idiots, brainwashed, tribal, envious or anything like that. Same for almost any party.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Jules wrote:It's beyond pathetic to cling on to that limp, ancient excuse, cuts no ice with me.

It may well "cut no ice" with you, Jules, given your party allegiance, but it is not an excuse, and neither is it "limp" (Liam Byne himself admitted that it was a stupid thing to write, but significantly never denied the accuracy of it) nor "ancient" (May 2010).

Labour left a post-war record national debt and deficit, and no matter how much the party would like to see history re-written,  in that pretty dire economic situation lay the roots of the years of austerity that we have suffered since.

And that is NOT party political point  scoring on my part because I am a member of no party, and never have been, and I voted Labour in 1997 and on at least two other occasions before then.

Why do you always make reference to ''my party allegiance''?  What party???

You are being too presumptuous in the way you always confidently pigeonhole me.
For someone who is so resistant to being pigeonholed, himself, or linked to just one particular party, you seem very quick to do this to others?


OK, for the record - yes I am left leaning - in a liberal/tolerant/inclusive sort of way.
But I am surprisingly conservative in certain respects, as regards to drugs (zero tolerance!) and certain aspects of family life, and gender fluidity issues too.

In short, I am a mixture of beliefs and certainly more complex than the simple soul you clearly believe me to be.

Victorismyhero wrote:the inheritance tax, instigated to help pay for WW! is an out dated and wrongful tax. in your life you have paid tax on EVERYTHING you own at least twice over , once on the money you are spending then VAT or duty or whatever, in the case of property there is "stamp duty"  tax onthe building and vat on any and all maintennece/ improvement.


so WHY should you have to pay ONE PENNY in yet another tax for the pleasure of quitting this earth?

this issue is just more of the disgusting lefty "class warfare" and the race to the bottom.
you EVEN have leftys that advocate the ridiculous and absurd and cruel idea that pensioners should be removed from their home (by either fiscal or physical means) and MADE to exist in some miniscule little rabbit hole,


Quote "more suited to their purpose" presumably so some young benefit grabbing couple can take over their home with their 12 kids by 25 fathers to continue breeding

Ironically the women who have HUGE families : (15 or 20 or 20-plus  kids) tend to be monogamous married women, not at all promiscuous.  All their kids usually have just one dad - the husband!  I've researched this and done threads on it.


Personally I wish I had more kids ..... but I only have one.  I made sure i had a damn good education plus a good career behind me first, before I had him. My siblings all have 2 kids on average, who are all grown up now. None of us 'overbred' lol.


My son worked full time since he left uni, his work ethic is ferocious  - and as a single man he is disproportionately overtaxed, to pay for the upkeep of single mums, and married mums with lots of kids. He will probably be a net contributor all his life.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thing - I agree with the frustration of inheritance tax, and using homes as capital to provide elderly care for the owner. Our mortgage is paid off now,  and I know that one day our home could be forcibly sold to provide social care for us if dementia or severe illness strikes. I accept that.

Post Brexit, no more cheap Euro labour can be imported to care for folk in nursing homes - which is a VERY labour intensive process - so if people are forced to sell their homes to be able to afford care ……….. well, that's how the cookie crumbles.

Jules wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

It may well "cut no ice" with you, Jules, given your party allegiance, but it is not an excuse, and neither is it "limp" (Liam Byne himself admitted that it was a stupid thing to write, but significantly never denied the accuracy of it) nor "ancient" (May 2010).

Labour left a post-war record national debt and deficit, and no matter how much the party would like to see history re-written,  in that pretty dire economic situation lay the roots of the years of austerity that we have suffered since.

And that is NOT party political point  scoring on my part because I am a member of no party, and never have been, and I voted Labour in 1997 and on at least two other occasions before then.

Why do you always make reference to ''my party allegiance''?  What party???

You are being too presumptuous in the way you always confidently pigeonhole me.
For someone who is so resistant to being pigeonholed, himself, or linked to just one particular party, you seem very quick to do this to others?


OK, for the record - yes I am left leaning - in a liberal/tolerant/inclusive sort of way.
But I am surprisingly conservative in certain respects, as regards to drugs (zero tolerance!) and certain aspects of family life, and gender fluidity issues too.

In short, I am a mixture of beliefs and certainly more complex than the simple soul you clearly believe me to be.

So far as I can recall, I don't think I have previously made many references to your politics but I had assumed, obviously incorrectly, that you are a Labour voter - not, of course, that there is anything wrong with that. Mea culpa; my apologies.

And believe you to be in any way simple? Never.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

So far as I can recall, I don't think I have previously made many references to your politics but I had assumed, obviously incorrectly, that you are a Labour voter - not, of course, that there is anything wrong with that.  Mea culpa; my apologies.

And believe you to be in any way simple? Never.

No probs, Fred.
All things being equal I tend to default to Labour - I witnessed the miners strike from its inception & lived thru it all.
But I'm not above a bit of tactical voting. The Independents & the Greens are sometimes good alternatives.

I probably come across as more LW than I actually am, cos I defend the left so fiercely on here,  against the tirade of hundreds of anti-LW threads, all coming from just one person.

I do it to provide some balance and even things up a bit !  


------------------------------------------------------------
I know this Channel is snobbishly derided by some, and I know it's about American politics but I feel Ana sums up socialist principles perfectly. Listen to her reply from c. 0:55secs onwards. Get Ana in the white house & Downing Street lol!   > >

Jules wrote:I probably come across as more LW than I actually am, cos I defend the left so fiercely on here,  against the tirade of hundreds of anti-LW threads, all coming from just one person.

I do it to provide some balance and even things up a bit !  


------------------------------------------------------------
I know this Channel is derided by some, and I know it's about American politics but I feel Ana sums up socialist principles perfectly. Listen to her reply from 0:55secs onwards. Get Ana in the white house & Downing Street!   > >

Andy already posts many anti Tory, hence right wing threads

How about Lukers continued daily threads against Trump?

Do you think this is anti left?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t28219-can-empathic-concern-actually-increase-political-polarization#533988

How about this?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t28218-how-to-beat-trump-on-immigration#533987

Or are you really over exaggerating and ignoring there is as many threads that attack the right?

So I am happy you defend the left and hope you continue to do so. What I think is poor is your biased stance on what you chose to see posted here and what you yourself ignore