Get voting labour, renationalise royal mail!

[yellowbelly]

Corbyn is talking about taxing the rich.

He's talked about more tax on anyone over 80k

The blokes who service my heating/boiler and who replaced my garden fence both earn more than that.
Both own their own businesses. Both get their hands dirty, both went to local comp, both turn up to the pub
on a Friday PM in their working clothes (before me the swines...), known them for years. One of them
owns a villa in Spain. Is taxing them more right? Not in their opinion - they won't vote Con but they won't vote Labour either........

[yellowbelly]

Just in the interests of clarity (and not making any excuses for any Govt of any particular flavour), this source of this data
appears to be from data produced in 2012 based on poverty information measured at 2008 and 2012.

The coalition had been in power for two years at 2012, in 2008 New Labour had been in power for eleven years.

Percentage poverty rate 2008 24.0 Labour in power
Percentage poverty rate 2012 25.6 Coalition in power

This isn't really providing clarity because child poverty was 30% in 1990 after the Tories doubled it from 1979. It was 20% by the time the coalition took over, and they've now taken it back up to 30% by the latest figures.

Yes, it was still too high under Labour, but they did a lot to reduce it, while the Tories have actively helped it rise over their last two terms in office.

Stanlers - ok perhaps I should have said 'expanding on this table a little', I was making my comment on the bare table Radio had posted without any background.

I suppose if we went back to Victorian data the conclusions again would look different or maybe they wouldn't......

"I can prove anything by statistics except the truth" - George Canning (aaaggh a Tory!!)

[Radio]

[Tman]

I honestly don't know what you're getting at, but you're arguing with cold facts. £3bn contribution, £0.5bn cost -

No, I'm arguing with your quoted stats. A little thought shows that it's an impossibility for every immigrant to be a net contributor as you allege.
Anyone who isn't working and earning a good wage will not be a net contributor, and that category also includes anyone of school age, past retirement age, the ill and sick, most mothers/carers of young children, the unskilled and unemployable, anyone illiterate or not fluent in English, etc etc.

Also, education to GCSE level costs around £70,000 per child. Like I said, most of us - you included - will never pay off what you've taken before you die. It's probably not nice to hear that most immigrants come to the UK and pay for their stay while you (and me, and most of us here) are a burden on the taxpayer, but it's the truth.

I can't believe you can't see the obvious flaw in your own argument; so you say most of us "won't pay off what we've taken" but many/most immigrants have/will have children and will expect them to be educated (rightly) but somehow they'll still be "net contributors" and that's before we start on other costs incurred or benefits paid.
Maybe you need to read what you've written, or stop believing the hype?

[stan_lers]

No, I'm arguing with your quoted stats. A little thought shows that it's an impossibility for every immigrant to be a net contributor as you allege.

Immigrants overall contribute more than they take. Are you thinking I'm saying every single immigrant contributes £3bn?? Obviously I'm talking about the averaged figure.

past retirement age, the ill and sick, most mothers/carers of young children, the unskilled and unemployable, anyone illiterate or not fluent in English, etc etc.

Again, this is not most immigrants. More immigrants have degrees than Britons, most of them are not unemployable, and very few of them are unemployed. Yes there are children, retirees, etc, but again you're arguing with figures that say categorically that overall, they contribute more than they take.

so you say most of us "won't pay off what we've taken" but many/most immigrants have/will have children and will expect them to be educated (rightly) but somehow they'll still be "net contributors" and that's before we start on other costs incurred or benefits paid.

A child born here is British, not an immigrant, so it's not really relevant. But when your parents' generation has paid in 6x more than they've taken then yes, those second generation immigrants are probably also paying their own way.

[Tman]

You're just playing the stats game still.

Immigrants overall contribute more than they take.

Yes, so you keep saying, but it's a nonsense.

Are you thinking I'm saying every single immigrant contributes £3bn?? Obviously I'm talking about the averaged figure.

Every single immigrant contributes TO the £3 bn is what I hope you meant, but if you're talking averages then your logic becomes even worse.
For all the immigrants who contribute little or nothing (as already listed) there must be a small minority who're somehow contributing many £thousands (that's how averages work) so who are these people and what jobs have they got?
Are you really trying to claim that say, Iraqi brain surgeons or Polish GPs are making up the financial short-fall for the rest who're contributing nothing?
Your claim is illogical. Too many contribute nothing at all (mostly by virtue of either not working or low value employment) for the overall total to be a net contribution.

[feduppostie]

I don't know how anybody could vote for a party that cannot condone the actions of the ira,those people murdered men,women and children on the mainland

You do realise that while Jeremy Corbyn was talking to the IRA - believing that talks were the only way to bring about peace - ( and he was right) while he was doing that and Thatcher was declaring she would - never negotiate with terrorists - she was in fact doing exactly the same thing but lying to the public about it don't you?

Personally I choose someone who has the balls to openly admit what he is doing and why - than someone that lies to save face whilst doing the same

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[stephen500]

Corbyn is talking about taxing the rich.

He's talked about more tax on anyone over 80k

The blokes who service my heating/boiler and who replaced my garden fence both earn more than that.
Both own their own businesses. Both get their hands dirty, both went to local comp, both turn up to the pub
on a Friday PM in their working clothes (before me the swines...), known them for years. One of them
owns a villa in Spain. Is taxing them more right? Not in their opinion - they won't vote Con but they won't vote Labour either........

The tax increase on them is quoted as a reasonable amount. The main tax rises will come in corporation taxes.
Believe me, if the Tories get elected, you will be paying a lot more tax very quickly.
Btw The tories will increase Nat ins for self employed as they tried to do so before the election

[stephen500]

If you choose to vote Tory, you deserve all that is coming to you after June 8th. Just for a moment, rationally tell me what is wrong with Corbyn?
He wants to build 100,000 homes.
He wants to peg rent rises to inflation.
He wants to give all primary kids a free school meal.
He wants to make University education free.
He wants to bring back into public ownership the railways and Royal Mail.
He wants to stop all the cuts to the schools that headteachers say will result in less teachers for your children.
He wants to end raising the retirement age over 66.
And he can do all of this without raising taxes for those earning under £80,000, whilst just putting corporation tax back to where it was a few years ago,
You vote Tory if you wish. But if you do, you deserve higher rents, zero hr contracts, Royal Mail hacking back on your pay and conditions, less teachers, rubbish railways and your children up to their eyes in education debt. Can't understand what idiots we have for voters in this country.

In an ideal world mate but he's not said where all the money coming from to pay for all this, in my eyes Tony Blair tarnished Labour for ever, I would rather not vote than vote labour.

He has. By putting corp tax back to where it was five years ago.

[feduppostie]

Everything Corbyn wants to do is exactly what this country needs - we can change things - you just need to vote Labour

[NWpostie]

I don't know how anybody could vote for a party that cannot condone the actions of the ira,those people murdered men,women and children on the mainland

You do realise that while Jeremy Corbyn was talking to the IRA - believing that talks were the only way to bring about peace - ( and he was right) while he was doing that and Thatcher was declaring she would - never negotiate with terrorists - she was in fact doing exactly the same thing but lying to the public about it don't you?

Personally I choose someone who has the balls to openly admit what he is doing and why - than someone that lies to save face whilst doing the same

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16366413" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Already been said before and it's still rubbish they are muderers and killed many innocents, captured people of their own community and torturing them before they are killed, they are known as the "dissappeared"

Saint Corbyn wants to honour them !!

A friend of mine was killed in NI during a fun run for a local charity, they weren't on combat operations or anything.

Scums the lot of them.

[toomuchcoke]

This is very serious folks. A postman/woman not voting Labour is a traitor to their class.

So you're saying I should vote for the party that came fourth in 2015, and who came joint-fifth in the recent council elections in the hope of preventing the party that came third in 2015 (and, worryingly, first in the council elections) from winning this time? Or maybe I could just vote for the party that came first in 2015, won the overlapping Holyrood constituency in 2016 and can hopefully beat the Tories this time around?

[the beautiful bd south]

This is very serious folks. A postman/woman not voting Labour is a traitor to their class.

So you're saying I should vote for the party that came fourth in 2015, and who came joint-fifth in the recent council elections in the hope of preventing the party that came third in 2015 (and, worryingly, first in the council elections) from winning this time? Or maybe I could just vote for the party that came first in 2015, won the overlapping Holyrood constituency in 2016 and can hopefully beat the Tories this time around?

Voting system is out of date.
Proportional representation anyone?

[NWpostie]

This is very serious folks. A postman/woman not voting Labour is a traitor to their class.

So you're saying I should vote for the party that came fourth in 2015, and who came joint-fifth in the recent council elections in the hope of preventing the party that came third in 2015 (and, worryingly, first in the council elections) from winning this time? Or maybe I could just vote for the party that came first in 2015, won the overlapping Holyrood constituency in 2016 and can hopefully beat the Tories this time around?

Voting system is out of date.
Proportional representation anyone?

No.

It's a recipe for an unstable coalition government and we've seen how that worked in the continent with a lot of horse trading and very little getting done, as it would be difficult to get concensus, it's recipe for disaster.

It's already been rejected in a referendum the last time round.

First past the post guarantees a strong and stable government.

[CPTNemoUK]

Amazing how many resort to insults when someone disagrees with their opinion

Grow up

I I have been wanting to say the same thing but thought whats the point.