YON MON'S GONE POTTY!

[phil d]

On the news this morning, Corbyn apparently is thinking of coming up with a "garden tax" if he gets in! From what I could work out, the idea is that the bigger the garden the more tax you pay, so I live in a council house, my garden is approximately 130 feet by 30 feet, I have no choice about it, it comes with the house. Why should I pay more for something that I have no control of? Or is it some cunning plan to get everybody wanting flats, or as they call them today, apartments. One thing is certain if he's looking to lose an election he's going the right way about it, what's next on his list, re-introduce the window tax?

As they say in Wigan, "yon mon's gone potty"

 

[ProDave]

TM is doing a good job of turning a landslide victory into a marginal win or a hung parliament. We need the other side to do something equally stupid to counter that.

 

[Evans Electric]

On the news this morning, Corbyn apparently is thinking of coming up with a "garden tax" if he gets in! From what I could work out, the idea is that the bigger the garden the more tax you pay, so I live in a council house, my garden is approximately 130 feet by 30 feet, I have no choice about it, it comes with the house. Why should I pay more for something that I have no control of? Or is it some cunning plan to get everybody wanting flats, or as they call them today, apartments. One thing is certain if he's looking to lose an election he's going the right way about it, what's next on his list, re-introduce the window tax?

As they say in Wigan, "yon mon's gone potty"

As you say ,  its not your garden why should it cost you in extra tax?   

I remember , unfortunately, a few Labour governments and they all do the same ,  promise the poorer off better things to win the election , then tax everyone until it hurts to pay for their promises.   

The Wilson government were taxing high earners @ 99p in the £   I think it was,  so they start leaving the country .   Thats why the likes of Tom Jones etc are only in the UK for so many months each year.      I think The Beatles's taxes kept the country afloat in the '60s . 

The answers used to be easier for them back then , promise the Earth then pay for it by squeezing the well off , along with additional tax on ciggies , booze & petrol.

I'g guess the tobacco tax has dropped well down by now . 

Then come on TV to tell us how well off we now are under Labour .  

As I remember it , with every Labour government , your standard of living goes steadily downhill  .

The only good thing Wilson did for us , that I remember , was to keep us out of Vietnam . ( Probably because we couldn't afford yet another war)

 

[binky]

since the recent poll suggesting Labour making great strides into the Tory majority, there has definetly been a noted increase in slagging off of Labour. Now reaing between the lines of the Daily Mail's report on this garden tax, it is part of a 'consideration' for reforming Council Tax. You may also note the 'teorrorist lover' attacks are also back in the headlines. To me this shows how worried the 'establishment' is.

As for things getting worse under Labour, they definetly have under the current government, and they certainly won't get better with another term in office You may also notice the lack of reporting on TMs support for the Naylor report as slipped out in a recent interview, the one that proposes to privatise the NHS.

https://nhap.org/the-naylor-report-the-nhs-sell-off-is-being-speeded-up-our-children-are-being-robbed-of-their-inheritance/

 

[phil d]

I think we're going to get screwed whoever gets in, it just depends how badly, this garden tax if it gets in is wrong on so many levels. When the bedroom tax was brought in that was another stupid idea, councils / housing associations have a limited number of properties. Now we live in a 3 bedroom semi, there's currently only me and the wife since the kids left home, if we were on benefits we'd have to pay a fair lump as we have two "spare" bedrooms. However the housing dept don't have very many one bedroom properties, most are flats and are inhabited primarily by undesirables, they have no decent parking which results in a higher insurance premium, and you cannot keep a dog. Even if we wanted one we couldn't currently have one as there are non available due to a housing shortage.

So while it would not be our fault that we couldn't move to a smaller home it would if we were on benefits be left to us to pay the excess. It will be the same with gardens, most council properties, certainly the older ones like ours have large gardens, again not our choice, yet it would be us who'd have to pay, like it or not.

I can see something happening whereby councils will end up demolishing large numbers of houses and building flats in the space where the houses once stood, this will solve the housing crisis perhaps, but, it will lead to a recurrence of the problems that happened in the 60's and 70's which were laid firmly at the door of the blocks of flats.

If they are going to tax things then it needs to be fair, proportionate, and things that you have a choice over, nobody forces you to drink, or smoke, or drive a big car, these are all things about which you have a choice. However there is a trend at the moment to tax things that the poorer element of society is affected most by. Take cars for example, there's talk of higher taxes for older more polluting vehicles, again these older vehicles are owned by the less well off. I personally run a 15 year old diesel car, I cannot afford a new one, when the government were offering incentives to buy environmentally friendly cars, again it was the more well off who were able to take advantage of this.

In my opinion it is currently getting that way that it's becoming a crime almost to not be wealthy, it will once again be a case of the haves and have nots and we less well off will be reduced to peasants as were in times gone by.

 

[steptoe]

I 'love' the way you put 'terrorist lover' (correct spooling I think) in quotes,

What is there ambiguous about what he has done and said in the past,?

You know what, the man actually cones out with some sense sometimes, but that major part of his history simply makes his whole party unvotable for me, and many others I would say also. 

He simply doesn't see terrorists, he merely sees misunderstood 'freedom fighters'

 

[apprentice87]

Yes, but Steps, was not corbyns contact with the IRA or whoever not aimed at bringing about a peace?? Even Ian Paisley ended up talking to them, and was indeed, after some time, became good friends with Martin McGuiness. Was this snot a similar sort of thing?? Talking, seems to me, to have done more good then all the aggression ever did..

john..

 

[poni]

Talking, seems to me, to have done more good then all the aggression ever did..

you have to talk to freedom fighters on both sides, at some time to get peace

 

[apprentice87]

Exactly my point....

john....

 

[poni]

I think at that time all parties on all sides where in talks with each other , if they were not then we would not have the peace we have now, I say more jaw, jaw then war, war

 

[steptoe]

you have to talk to freedom fighters on both sides, at some time to get peace

Exactly my point....

john....

I think at that time all parties on all sides where in talks with each other , if they were not then we would not have the peace we have now, I say more jaw, jaw then war, war

My point was not actually simple aim at norn iron, even if he didn't actually take part in the peace process, he merely publicly promoted what the ira were perpetuating,

He also invited and was/is friends with hamas, and other terrorist organisations throughout the world.

This myth that he was actually a part of any peace process in NI is way badly maligned, no government, not even the Labour one gives any credence to this claim, and there is certainly no evidence of it,

The ira themselves have even distanced themselves from any claim of the sort. 

I'm not saying not speaking to terrorists is a bad thing, but under the correct circumstances, corbyns claims are false, that is my point, it has even been backed up by all sides in the situation.

He , perhaps, made a massive mistake of judgement, but he continues to deny he did so, and still perpetuates the lie he was a part if the peace talks, which everyone else involved in the process denies totally, even his own party.

 

[binky]

Jerry Adams was praising Corbyns' foresight in trying to bring about peace in an article I found the other week. Every terrorrist is someone elses 'hero' and many who when angry, young and violent, turn into great statesmen, Mandela being the ultimate example of this. He was imprisoned for bomb attacks in South Africa. Gandhi is probably the only 'soft revolution' leader who has managed to overthrow a state without resorting to voilence.

I talk to people I don't like every day, they're called customers :^O .

But, to be frank, I'm far more interested in who gets in here and now, and what happens next. The Tory party hasn't even costed their policies and their leader can't be arsed to turn up for a TV debate, yet is suppossed to be great negotiator.

I 'love' the way you put 'terrorist lover' (correct spooling I think) in quotes,

What is there ambiguous about what he has done and said in the past,?

You know what, the man actually cones out with some sense sometimes, but that major part of his history simply makes his whole party unvotable for me, and many others I would say also. 

He simply doesn't see terrorists, he merely sees misunderstood 'freedom fighters'

I have dyslexic fingers :^O . I also put it to you again to prove your point with evidence, and I don't mean Daily mail articles.

 

[apprentice87]

My point was not actually simple aim at norn iron, even if he didn't actually take part in the peace process, he merely publicly promoted what the ira were perpetuating,

He also invited and was/is friends with hamas, and other terrorist organisations throughout the world.

This myth that he was actually a part of any peace process in NI is way badly maligned, no government, not even the Labour one gives any credence to this claim, and there is certainly no evidence of it,

The ira themselves have even distanced themselves from any claim of the sort. 

I'm not saying not speaking to terrorists is a bad thing, but under the correct circumstances, corbyns claims are false, that is my point, it has even been backed up by all sides in the situation.

He , perhaps, made a massive mistake of judgement, but he continues to deny he did so, and still perpetuates the lie he was a part if the peace talks, which everyone else involved in the process denies totally, even his own party.

That seems fair Steps... I do not think anyone will ever know exactly who said what to who though, especially as the tory lot were in on it too. All the years of them saying "we will never negotiate" but then, it turns out to be pidgeon-poop, and that willie whitelaw had been talking to them, [the IRA] in secret, for years [even though thatcher and co denied] Then there was the nonsense where Gerry Adams voice was not allowed to be on the telly, so they had the film of him with an actor doing the talking.

Just glad both sides seem to have reached an agreement at last.. [At least i think they have, more or less???]

john..

 

[phil d]

I remember talking to a bloke I knew a few years back, he was ex military and served in NI, he was part of a squad that used to snatch terrorist suspects and interrogate them, officially a lot of it never happened, Anyway he was telling me that, as a result of something that happened, as a sort of calling card they began to chop off part of the little finger of the terrorists they captured. It was a way of giving them a permanent reminder and of making them easily identifiable to others, he told me to look for a certain MP on tv who when being interviewed always kept one hand in his pocket, this was because he was missing half of his little finger!

I can't remember this MP's name now, but I do remember seeing a photo of him once, taken when he was off guard, and he did indeed have part of his little finger missing!

My main argument against Corbyn is he seems to live in some kind of utopia, he has rather suspect views on terrorists, referring to them as "misunderstood" people, try telling those people who lost loved ones in the recent Manchester bombing that they were not victims of a terrorist, but of someone who was misunderstood!

We have enough nutters in this country already, we don't need to be importing any more from abroad, unfortunately he can't see this and I can see his reluctance to tighten immigration as being a real vote loser.

I don't have all the answers, if I did then it would be me running the country, whatever happens I don't believe any side offers a perfect solution, we can only wait and see what happens.

 

[apprentice87]

I think what corbyn ACTUALLY said on telly, was that he was not going to "put a figure on immigration" He then pointed out, that the tories HAD put a figure on it, but that every year since TM was home secretary, that they have missed it by miles [ like double or more], so, so much for tory figures..

john..

 

[phil d]

I think what corbyn ACTUALLY said on telly, was that he was not going to "put a figure on immigration" He then pointed out, that the tories HAD put a figure on it, but that every year since TM was home secretary, that they have missed it by miles [ like double or more], so, so much for tory figures..

john..

Is that not a bit of a "head in the sand" mentality? Yes we know, TM's government has wildly missed their targets, however Corbyn refusing to come up with a figure is no better, Clearly what is needed is someone, anyone who is going to start listening to the people and acknowledging their concerns and addressing them. What we have at the moment is pathetic, nobody is doing anything positive, people are fed up with the number of people being allowed into this country and yet those in charge are doing nothing about it, "yes we know the majority want a cap on immigration, but we'll just keep letting them in"

Politicians need to remember they are servants of the public, they are voted in by the public to do what the public wants, yet they get in and then ignore those who put them in power. Imagine as an electrician being called to a customer who says, " I'd like 2 twin sockets in the lounge and an outside light by the front door", What would happen if you went in and YOU decided that it would be better if they had 2 outside lights at the rear and 3 extra sockets in the bedrooms! It's exactly the same with politicians, once in they forget who put them in power, such was the arrogance of David Cameron that he actually stated that the ordinary man, not only needs but expects to be told what is best for him by his "betters" ! Who is he to decide who is better than whom?    

 

[binky]

trying to put figures on migration is a bit of a challenge when we don't seem to have controls. I don't kow what Corbyns position is on this subject, BUT, as a large part of the Labour electorate want controls, I dare say the party will enforce a position on this.

AS for terrosrrists, most of the media coverage is from a UK perspective. The IRA exists becuase we invaded Ireland, Hamas exists because the Jews invaded Palestine to form Israel. Most terrorrist organisations exist becuase they have a cause. The only possile exception I can think of was the old Barden Mein Hoff gang (probably spelt that wrong), who were politically motivated, and maybe the likes of the animal rights brigade.

 

[steptoe]

trying to put figures on migration is a bit of a challenge when we don't seem to have controls. I don't kow what Corbyns position is on this subject, BUT, as a large part of the Labour electorate want controls, I dare say the party will enforce a position on this.

AS for terrosrrists, most of the media coverage is from a UK perspective. The IRA exists becuase we invaded Ireland, Hamas exists because the Jews invaded Palestine to form Israel. Most terrorrist organisations exist becuase they have a cause. The only possile exception I can think of was the old Barden Mein Hoff gang (probably spelt that wrong), who were politically motivated, and maybe the likes of the animal rights brigade.

Britain did NOT invade Ireland,

a common misconception, so its understandable you got it wrong, most people do.

 

[apprentice87]

What was the settlement of ireland all about then??

The british did not actually "invade" as such, just more or less proclaimed ireland was theirs, and did TERRIBLE things to the catholic folk who were simply removed from their lands which were confiscated.

john..

 

[steptoe]

What was the settlement of ireland all about then??

The british did not actually "invade" as such, just more or less proclaimed ireland was theirs, and did TERRIBLE things to the catholic folk who were simply removed from their lands which were confiscated.

john..

Learn your history John

Britain did NOT invade Ireland or simply proclaim it as their own.

I'm not saying they did nothing terrible to the Catholics,

But who burned Latimer and Ridley at the stake,?

And persecuted Martin Luther,?

To name but 3