BS: uk by-elections

Subject: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM

It looks like a disappointment for UKIP, a catastrophe for Labour and a triumph for the Tories.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

So, all in all, no surprises. Is labour sinking to the bottom of the swamp?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:43 AM

Yes labour is sinking , but perhaps that is better than floating with Turds like the careerists who inhabit the Parliamentary Party.

I think perhaps, as the labour party has no constituency any longer, Mr Corbyn should consider renaming his movement?

With Brexit, there is a good chance of economic regeneration if efficient and Long Term policies are applied by Mrs May and her team. Immigration rates are already beginning to fall, and wholesale retraining of our redundant workforce is required
Mr Corbyn's movement could act as a real alternative for the future....patience is indeed a virtue.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM

It seems that we are beginning to " channel" the US in voter rejection of the "liberal" political elite.....Perhaps the cool breeze of reality is beginning to blow over political matters.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM

Labour policies get very little support from me, but to see them sink into the sunset is not healthy. Democracy needs a strong opposition in order to function properly, no matter which party is in power.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:37 AM

Nice to know Ukip remain in the lunatic fringe
"cool breeze of reality"
More like the tramp of jackboots
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:15 AM

Nice to know Ukip remain in the lunatic fringe

They beat both the Tories and Lib Dems in Stoke.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:15 AM

Trump the Thug in the White House, Beppo the Clown in Italy, Terry the Arse-licker in Westminster, and Marine, the scourge of the Jews heading for the Elysee Palace alongside madman Geert Wilders in Holland.
Foul stench of corruption rather than the "cool breeze of reality"
I read with some hilarty that Don the Don wants America to become part of the commonwealth - maybe they'll let him build a golf course at Chequers!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:11 AM

Iains, the problem is the Labour party careerists are not a viable opposition.....Look what happened when Blair was in power the worst of both worlds......I think we are stuck with the conservatives for the foreseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:39 AM

Ake. you are probably correct. Perhaps we have a major problem with the selection mechanism. Many of the muppets are pre-selected before being paraded in front of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:42 AM

Another failure for the polls. Through Question Time last night there were various comments that it was believed that Labour had held both seats.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:56 AM

Does it mean that Labour is "sliding towards irrelevance" and becoming irrelevant to the very people it was created to support?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:14 AM

Net immigration may be beginning to fall, which is a very bad thing for our economy, and the NHS and other services. One of the things which may start to happen is that skilled and productive workers, both immigrants and British, begin to leave for countries in the mainstream. I know that this is already happening in the Higher Education sector, and anecdotally in the Financial Services sector as well.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

"Mainstream" David? What "mainstream"? Where?

By every metric going our economy is out performing that of the EU. Unemployment rate roughly half that of the EU. London still remains as the largest financial hub in the world and that will continue to be the case, it will certainly not lose out to Europe where the EU hopes to increase taxes on EVERY transaction whether inter EU or International.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

You speak as though you're a supporter of Corbyn,   Ake. I've not much time for the man. he seems a bit of an idiot to me. Not a great orator, no strong positive ideas - except spend a lot of money, no desire to face down anyone who's got us in the shit, and expects the armed forces to put their lives on the line armed with sticks and cardboard boxes.

Plus he has got together a gang of foul mouthed delinquents into the Labour Party who will drive out any moderate support.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

I'm afraid I agree with much of what you say Al, but I am supporter of a socialist soci-economic system which can prove sustainable in the very long term.....we shall all be financially worse off, there will be none of the waste we see today, we will be required to be responsible for aspects of our behaviour and that of our families.
Waste of resources will be viewed as a crime.....and all "liberals" will be transported to Rockall. I think we can reckon on about five ....after three weeks on half the minimum wage.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:41 AM

The mainstream EU which runs a trade surplus in both goods and services Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM

Good heavens David is that why the economy of the EU is stagnant do those figures you are using for the performance of the EU include the performance of the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM

Yes I suppose if the world were to start again tomorrow that would be fine. Unfortunately we are where we are. Ex imperialist nation with unfriendly faces everywhere.
Education system somewhere in pounds shillings and pence era. All the caPITAL IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILIES WHO WERE AT hENRY viii'S COURT. so no chance of investment, not when you can get a ten year old digging up coal on the other side of the world - what with free movement of capital. In the EU with all our trading partners particularly the Spanish nicking the fish from our chips - we don't even drive on the same side of the road as them!

socialist system would be nice, but Corbyn for godsake...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:47 PM

Ah well Al, there we must disagree, a future socialist system will not be "nice", it will be gruelling and selfless, much more so than Mrs Thatcher's regime.

It will not be a choice, it will be a survival technique for humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

Teribus, you know very well that they would be better without the UK.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade

Scroll down to where it is broken down by country.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:32 PM

we do indeed disagree, isms and ocracies come a long way behind being nice.

niceness is vital.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:51 PM

Don't get me wrong Al, I would prefer it to be "nice", but something tells me the establishment won't leave without employing every low underhand trick in the book.

Unfortunately there never seems to have been a nice and effective leader.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM

"Teribus, you know very well that they would be better without the UK."

Excellent Mr.Carter, looks like we got the Brexit vote right then. And as we are such poor performers doesn't that mean that our last 43 years in the EU has done us no good at all. So we as fifth largest economy in the world, shake loose from the restraints of the EU and go back to trading with the rest of the world. Win-Win situation all round apart from the fact that Germany loses it's best "European customer" and the EU as a whole loses it's second largest net contributor. Can't really work out what the "Remoaners" are complaining about.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:23 AM

No, before being in the EU the UK was known as the "sick man of Europe", remember that? Sure it was trading with the rest of the world, mostly at a loss.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

Lots of things have changed since 1973 David. In the world, in the UK and in Europe. The EEC worked, the EU does not.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:35 PM

Works for me. Framework I-VII, Horizon2020, Erasmus, ERDF. Not easily replaced, and definitely not replaced by anything in the knowledge of UK tories. The EU has been and remains a brilliant success, and the UK's future exclusion is to its detriment.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 04:40 PM

i don't think the eec 'worked'. i didn't vote for it. sick man of europe was what the toffs said.

i was proud of that england. nearly full employment. no beggars on the street, no hard drugs problem.   a socialist government that wouldn't join in America's vietnam adventure.

entry into the eec meant the start of the end for the one nation tories, and the end of respect for the society we had planned after the second world war.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:16 AM

Big Al, I don't think that any of that had to do with the EEC, that had to do with electing Thatcher, when we had already been in the EEC for 4 years. The EEC and the EU served to mitigate some of the worst excesses of Thatcherism. Also, if you think there were no beggars on the streets before 1975 you have either a very poor memory or you were walking around with your eyes closed.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

Of course it's all Thatcher's fault - how boringly predictable of you Mr. Carter.

Tell me what opportunities have there been to reverse every single measure enacted under Thatcher's Ministry? How many of them were? How many were emulated by other European Governments?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:20 AM

Every single general election since. And if some were emulated by other European governments this just goes to show that her baleful influence did not stop at the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM

If her influence was so baleful how come none of the measures she implemented were reversed?

Big questions about council tax looming. At present it is grossly unfair, Poll Tax wasn't and it is a pity that Council Tax replaced it. Strong contender for replacement of Council Tax is a form of local income tax which is just another form of levying a poll tax - i.e. each wage earner pays it not each householder.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM

Because she was replaced with similarly baleful people. Though some were reversed as with the Poll Tax you mention.

I would replace Council Tax with Land Value Tax. That would be much fairer.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:13 PM

Unfortunately "Land" irrespective of value does not use local authority resources so you still end up with the retired widow living in her own home that she has saved, bought and paid for, paying more than a family with four wage earners living in a council house. I know which "Property" uses more of and puts greater strain on the facilities paid for and provided by the local authority.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM

The problem of the retired widow is solved by offsetting some of the tax liability against equity in the property. But surely, we want to encourage wage earners?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM

Nothing to do with encouraging wage earners Mr. Carter is it? We are talking about funding the services that the council provides in the example I quote one pensioner ends up paying more than four people who all benefit. A fair and equitable arrangement would be that all pay for the services.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:47 PM

The money that council tax raises is a small proportion of what local services cost so let's not get too carried . We could raise the whole amount by income tax, but the concept of a local tax gives local people a stake in local politics. The argument is all about how to make that fair. A tax based on the supposed value of a house that is reviewed once in a blue moon is at best an extremely blunt instrument, and is unfairly skewed towards those at the bottom end paying disproportionately more. What price a mansion tax?

I'm with the LibDems (rare for me) in supporting a local income tax. Bureaucratic nightmare, of course, but fairer is fairer. Even better, what David says, a graduated land tax. You can't hide your land in offshore accounts. And it's fair because you didn't make the land.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

Carried away. I didn't get carried away enough.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:35 PM

Steve Shaw - 27 Feb 17 - 05:47 PM
"I'm with the LibDems (rare for me) in supporting a local income tax. Bureaucratic nightmare, of course, but fairer is fairer. Even better, what David says, a graduated land tax. You can't hide your land in offshore accounts. And it's fair because you didn't make the land.

Rare for you? You voted for them you lying prat. That quoted passage of yours equates to:

David Carter (UK): "Sir we have two options A and B which one should we adopt A means we have more people paying in less and the second is based on making people pay more based upon an asset that they cannot realise. A graduated property tax."

Shaw: "Well I like the idea of A as it is fair, but a bit inconvenient to administer. But I like B better as it sits better with my ideology. I know property is only worth anything when it is actually sold. But according to what our comrades tell us only rich bastards have property so let's make them pay for the lot".

The rich bastards sell up and move elsewhere, nobody buys the property because of the taxes Shaw has to raise, so you end up collecting F**k All. Well done Shaw. No bloody wonder Labour is in such a God awful mess.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:15 PM

Have another ten pints, Bill. Hope your head's ok in the morning! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:03 AM

Pathetic Shaw - pity you weren't carried far away enough.

You may have to resort to alcohol to see yourself through the day Shaw I do not. Human nature drives people to pay only what they absolutely have to and what was shown to be the case in your "socialist", incentive free, workers paradises was that people only do the bare minimum, everything else then comes from graft, corruption and a black economy that is so essential and becomes so powerful that nobody can dare to take any effective action against it.

A local authority is required to raise £500,000,000 from a community that consists of 100,000 properties and 361,000 wage earners. The properties if following national statistics will comprise 64% privately owned, 18% privately owned rented property, 11% Housing Association stock and 7% Council owned.

Average bill required to provide the services from the local authority is £5,000 per property per year (£96.15 per week). 18% of this is Government or Council in effect paying itself with all associated admin costs as they collect their council taxes as a portion of the rent.

If however you raise the required sum by imposition of a local income tax that works out at £1,385 per person per year (£26.64 per week). Deducted at source the machinery is already in place to do this at no additional expense and no expense to the council.

In addition you make that local income tax deductible from your national income tax as it is an expense essential for life. Every wage earner pays it and the impact on national tax revenue is marginal. Were you to do the same thing with your property based system the impact would be marked and a gift to the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:43 AM

The only fair way to raise the required funds is from income, each according to their means. The easiest way to raise it would be by diverting a set percentage of income tax, as the mechanism for collection is already in place.
Of course the raving socialists would want to place a tax on capital as well:- the typical politics of envy.
The system in place at the moment of taxing a properties worth is heavily skewed to shaft those at the bottom. Typically the lowest band payment is about 1/3 of the highest, spread among 8 bands. House prices range from 100k£ to millions. This system is as unfair as the poll tax but did not generate as much resistance when introduced.
To put that in perspective the 8 bands range roughly 1k-3.5k£ p.a.
Av income, depending on sources, is 26/27k£ before deductions.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

the party that fared the worse was UKIP, FOLLOWED BY LIB DEMS, the other two parties held a seat.
whatever spin the mediaputs on results, the above are facts

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Well no GSS

Stoke - Labour held a seat - with their 2015 majority cut by half. But UKIP ran them a creditable 2nd in Stoke (Had they stuck with their 2015 Candidate they might have won it)

Conservatives won what has always been considered a safe Labour seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:27 AM

They are facts, but not the important ones.
Labour held one seat but lost the other, and lost vote share on both.
The Tories took a seat, which is very unusual for a governing party, and gained vote share.
Ukip had a small gain in vote share in both, and beat both Tories and Lib Dems at Stoke.
The Lib Dems achieved what?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

"The loss of Copeland is hugely significant for Labour as opposition parties hardly ever lose seats in by-elections. The public generally use the opportunity to deliver a blow against whoever is in power but on this occasion no anti-establishment feeling presented itself."
The Telegraph;

It appears the public know how to prioritise:
"Copeland is the home of the Sellafield nuclear decommissioning site which employs thousands of people in the area. Jamie Reed was a big advocate for Sellafield - indeed he resigned to go and work at the plant - but Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm approach to protecting jobs there seems to have put voters off.

It seems that protecting these jobs was more important to voters in the area than the proposed closure of maternity services at Copeland hospital - something that Labour were relying on to fuel their vote."

It will be interesting to see the by election results for Gerald Kaufman's constituency when they appear. It was a very strong labour seat.
General Election 2015: Manchester Gorton[8][9] Party                                     Candidate                                 Votes          %         +/-                                                       Labour                Sir Gerald Kaufman         28,187         67.1         +17.0
Green                Laura Bannister         4,108         9.8         +7.0
Conservative         Mohammed Afzal         4,063         9.7         −1.4
UKIP                Phil Eckersley         3,434         8.2         N/A
LiberalDemocrat Dave Page                1,782         4.2         −28.4
TUSC                Simon Hickman                264         0.6         −0.3
Pirate                Cris Chesha                181         0.4         −0.2

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:21 AM

I would expect the Greens to do very well. If there was some tactical alliance with the Lib Dems, one of them could take the seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:43 AM

"You may have to resort to alcohol to see yourself through the day Shaw I do not."

I absolutely never touch alcohol during the day to "see myself through" or for any other reason, but I probably would if I were forced to live anywhere near you, rude sod. Oddly, despite your usual amusing splenetic outbursts, you seem to be agreeing with me about a local income tax.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Definition of hypocrisy:

Shaw to Teribus: Have another ten pints, Bill.

Shaw to Teribus: rude sod

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stu
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:35 AM

"The Lib Dems achieved what?"

They're not going to achieve much in Stoke, which come as no surprise to anyone. The Lib Dems strengths are in other areas of the country and they will make gains here, after all they are the only ones sticking up for the 48%.