Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 12:25:06 GMT
...Labour have made rather a lot of mistakes over the last 26 years, I am not convinced they have learned from those mistakes. Especially when the knee-jerk reaction of many on the left is to instantly blame Israel for the Hamas atrocities. It's anti-Semitism writ large. Labour nor the left are blaming Israel for the horrors inflicted by Hamas. It is not anti-Semitic to accuse Israel of war crimes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 12:28:15 GMT
Are you a financial expert, in honesty I cannot answer that question as my skills are limited in that area. I do know that because of it we avoided further harm to the people of the country. i have an O level in economics which means i probably know more than most chancellors of the exchequer on BOTH sides of the house. You opened this thread asking for a debate on the policies of the left. I deliberately picked this one as it speaks to the fundamental difference between the old school left and right of my youth. I have at various times since the age of 14 been employed, unemployed, self employed, a director of a limited company and an employer of staff. As such i contend that i have a wider grasp of economic reality than mist occupants of number 11 in the past century. If you pop into wikipedia you will find that on two occasions in the past both closely associated with world war 1 and 2 ‘the rich’ were taxed at 134% and 147% respectively through surcharges on funds invested. As an obvioys out and out Marxist that surely makes you glow with pride. The issue i particularly wished to discuss was Dennis Healey’s decision to screw the nuts off ‘the rich’ and the impact it actually had. I’m sure you have some grasp of how dividends and bank loans work. When i studied O Level Economics i was shown how the Bank Of England - a private company, remember - engineers things to create eleven pounds of loans from each pound invested and makes a profit of about three pounds as a result. In short, if you put a pound in a current account, the bank is required to retain about 8p of that and can create loans and overdrafts with the other 92p. But those are bank accounts for which the bank us only required to retain 8p in the pound and can therefore use 84p of the 92p overdraft / loan to person A as a loan offered to person B and 77p of that overdraft can be loaned to person C … It is the ultimate pyramid ponzi scheme and when you keep multiplying £1 by 0.92 you end up with well over eleven quid of loans with only the bank’s name, the Bank of England’s guarantee to be the lender of last resort and a prayer that the borrowers are good for the repossession of the guarantee capital if their business plans go tits up standing between us and another Lehman Brothers When i took my O level, authorised overdrafts were about 28% APR. The point i was getting at was Healey set out to destroy the ability of the corporate business sector to secure funds by the issue of share capital. Most Marxists see only the bull, and particularly the bear speculation that epitomise the worst excesses of the good for nothing middlemen profiteering from the need for business to raise finance. The fact is companies issue shares to raise money for the business and the selling and buying of such at a profit and loss masks the true worth of shares to the company, which is a way to acquire funds for which a fee is paid by declaring a dividend. Healey’s antics had many adverse effects and it is widely accepted his actions made a shitty situation far worse. I remember Max Bygraves calling himself a real life father christmas as he was one of a mere handful of people earning enough to suffer the 85% tax and 15% NI rate who did not immediately take action to move themselves AND their money out of the country When Geoffrey Howe dropped the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% the budget commentary programmes all said with one voice the one thing it had done at a stroke is removed any point in being a non UK domiciled person. So, having laid the above out, i will ask again Do you think Healey’s 98% tax rate including the 15% surtax on dividends received from investments in shares funding companies who as a result of that funding could invest in production for less than a third of the cost of borrowing from a bank was a goid idea  ? As I thought no qualification other than that of many other people including me. It would be a very bad day if the C0fE had an O level and no other qualifications. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 14, 2023 14:28:35 GMT
It would be a very bad day if the C0fE had an O level and no other qualifications. I doubt it would make that much odds. If you know basic economics, you know a substantial part of the discipline that isn't fluff and propaganda |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 14, 2023 14:44:01 GMT
Redressing the balance is fine and dandy unless of course you are the one against whom the balance is being redressed. It does raise the moral question as regards is racial discrimination morally indefensible or is it something that is only morally wrong if it is used incorrectly. The latter of course means that someone has to make a decision as regards its correct usage and this is where the left come in. Racial selection in their eyes is just plain wrong and as such must be redressed, Not by the outlawing of racial selection but by empowering racial selection to achieve the corrections they believe are required. The point about the BPA is that it is an association, whose members have the power of arrest, that disallows voting to white members. Any police association that existed before gave equal voting rights to all members and work only for black police officers. The BNP were taken to court for this very act of discrimination in membership. A Police Association made up of almost entirely white officers was largely because the country was made up almost entirely of white people. This is an attempt to excuse racism against blacks by deflecting the point to white people. White people are not discriminated against in this country, this is a myth gendered by racists. I am not calling you a racist just following a narrative started by racists. It is illegal to be racist or racially discriminate against a black person in any size shape or form, it is not illegal to so discriminate against a white person. You may call it 'redressing the balance' but in effect you are using a process that you hail as immoral to correct past immorality. Then you say white people are not discriminated against yet the positive actions laws do exactly that by favouring for training ethnic minorities and allowing as arbiter of final selection to be on a racial basis to 'correct' under representation. White people are not allowed to form any form of association where black people can be excluded but black people can in many walks of life form associations that work specifically for their ethnic group and from which white people can be excluded and will receive no benefit. In the end it comes round to opinion, you hold the opinion that we need to redress the balance and as such discriminating against white people (which is what happens) is an acceptable process. Not to mention (but I will) the teaching of white privilege and critical race theory which both place an attribute(s) on white people in the round. This is no different to those who taught at one time that black races were inferior which we accepted as being an immoral stance yet now the whole process has turned volte face. This is the leftish hypocrisy which says " I believe this, therefore it is". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 15:33:46 GMT
This is an attempt to excuse racism against blacks by deflecting the point to white people. White people are not discriminated against in this country, this is a myth gendered by racists. I am not calling you a racist just following a narrative started by racists. It is illegal to be racist or racially discriminate against a black person in any size shape or form, it is not illegal to so discriminate against a white person. You may call it 'redressing the balance' but in effect you are using a process that you hail as immoral to correct past immorality. Then you say white people are not discriminated against yet the positive actions laws do exactly that by favouring for training ethnic minorities and allowing as arbiter of final selection to be on a racial basis to 'correct' under representation. White people are not allowed to form any form of association where black people can be excluded but black people can in many walks of life form associations that work specifically for their ethnic group and from which white people can be excluded and will receive no benefit. In the end it comes round to opinion, you hold the opinion that we need to redress the balance and as such discriminating against white people (which is what happens) is an acceptable process. Not to mention (but I will) the teaching of white privilege and critical race theory which both place an attribute(s) on white people in the round. This is no different to those who taught at one time that black races were inferior which we accepted as being an immoral stance yet now the whole process has turned volte face. This is the leftish hypocrisy which says " I believe this, therefore it is". Lefty hypocrisy now goes as far as them supporting arab racial nationalism that's on par with Nazism and dropping to their knees to racial movements that celebrate and support designated terrorist organisations
They are a very sick cult that clearly has protection from some very sick and powerful people.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 14, 2023 15:49:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 16:20:46 GMT
This is an attempt to excuse racism against blacks by deflecting the point to white people. White people are not discriminated against in this country, this is a myth gendered by racists. I am not calling you a racist just following a narrative started by racists. It is illegal to be racist or racially discriminate against a black person in any size shape or form, it is not illegal to so discriminate against a white person. You may call it 'redressing the balance' but in effect you are using a process that you hail as immoral to correct past immorality. Then you say white people are not discriminated against yet the positive actions laws do exactly that by favouring for training ethnic minorities and allowing as arbiter of final selection to be on a racial basis to 'correct' under representation. White people are not allowed to form any form of association where black people can be excluded but black people can in many walks of life form associations that work specifically for their ethnic group and from which white people can be excluded and will receive no benefit. In the end it comes round to opinion, you hold the opinion that we need to redress the balance and as such discriminating against white people (which is what happens) is an acceptable process. Not to mention (but I will) the teaching of white privilege and critical race theory which both place an attribute(s) on white people in the round. This is no different to those who taught at one time that black races were inferior which we accepted as being an immoral stance yet now the whole process has turned volte face. This is the leftish hypocrisy which says " I believe this, therefore it is". Wrong, racism knows no colour, it is illegal to discriminate against any person be they black, white Chinese, disabled....... It is not I that has the opinion that we need to redress the balance it is those that know when discrimination is taking place and put policies in place to remove it. The fact that most people do not believe black people are an inferior race does not mean that racism has ended, it still exists and if people who practice it continue to do so other agencies must deal with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 16:23:27 GMT
It is illegal to be racist or racially discriminate against a black person in any size shape or form, it is not illegal to so discriminate against a white person. You may call it 'redressing the balance' but in effect you are using a process that you hail as immoral to correct past immorality. Then you say white people are not discriminated against yet the positive actions laws do exactly that by favouring for training ethnic minorities and allowing as arbiter of final selection to be on a racial basis to 'correct' under representation. White people are not allowed to form any form of association where black people can be excluded but black people can in many walks of life form associations that work specifically for their ethnic group and from which white people can be excluded and will receive no benefit. In the end it comes round to opinion, you hold the opinion that we need to redress the balance and as such discriminating against white people (which is what happens) is an acceptable process. Not to mention (but I will) the teaching of white privilege and critical race theory which both place an attribute(s) on white people in the round. This is no different to those who taught at one time that black races were inferior which we accepted as being an immoral stance yet now the whole process has turned volte face. This is the leftish hypocrisy which says " I believe this, therefore it is". Lefty hypocrisy now goes as far as them supporting arab racial nationalism that's on par with Nazism and dropping to their knees to racial movements that celebrate and support designated terrorist organisations
They are a very sick cult that clearly has protection from some very sick and powerful people.
I personally have never 'taken the knee' which I assume you are referring to but people who have 'persuasive' power are entitled to do as they wish and support any cause they see fit, are you saying nobody should call out racism? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 16:25:01 GMT
A bit stupid don't you think? Why do you have such a downer on people expressing themselves as they want, very communist of you. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 14, 2023 16:28:29 GMT
A bit stupid don't you think? Why do you have such a downer on people expressing themselves as they want, very communist of you. Then there is the other one, a sense of humour bypass, I thought she was a comic so creating laughter must be her thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 16:56:52 GMT
A bit stupid don't you think? Why do you have such a downer on people expressing themselves as they want, very communist of you. Then there is the other one, a sense of humour bypass, I thought she was a comic so creating laughter must be her thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 14, 2023 16:58:44 GMT
i have an O level in economics which means i probably know more than most chancellors of the exchequer on BOTH sides of the house. You opened this thread asking for a debate on the policies of the left. I deliberately picked this one as it speaks to the fundamental difference between the old school left and right of my youth. I have at various times since the age of 14 been employed, unemployed, self employed, a director of a limited company and an employer of staff. As such i contend that i have a wider grasp of economic reality than mist occupants of number 11 in the past century. If you pop into wikipedia you will find that on two occasions in the past both closely associated with world war 1 and 2 ‘the rich’ were taxed at 134% and 147% respectively through surcharges on funds invested. As an obvioys out and out Marxist that surely makes you glow with pride. The issue i particularly wished to discuss was Dennis Healey’s decision to screw the nuts off ‘the rich’ and the impact it actually had. I’m sure you have some grasp of how dividends and bank loans work. When i studied O Level Economics i was shown how the Bank Of England - a private company, remember - engineers things to create eleven pounds of loans from each pound invested and makes a profit of about three pounds as a result. In short, if you put a pound in a current account, the bank is required to retain about 8p of that and can create loans and overdrafts with the other 92p. But those are bank accounts for which the bank us only required to retain 8p in the pound and can therefore use 84p of the 92p overdraft / loan to person A as a loan offered to person B and 77p of that overdraft can be loaned to person C … It is the ultimate pyramid ponzi scheme and when you keep multiplying £1 by 0.92 you end up with well over eleven quid of loans with only the bank’s name, the Bank of England’s guarantee to be the lender of last resort and a prayer that the borrowers are good for the repossession of the guarantee capital if their business plans go tits up standing between us and another Lehman Brothers When i took my O level, authorised overdrafts were about 28% APR. The point i was getting at was Healey set out to destroy the ability of the corporate business sector to secure funds by the issue of share capital. Most Marxists see only the bull, and particularly the bear speculation that epitomise the worst excesses of the good for nothing middlemen profiteering from the need for business to raise finance. The fact is companies issue shares to raise money for the business and the selling and buying of such at a profit and loss masks the true worth of shares to the company, which is a way to acquire funds for which a fee is paid by declaring a dividend. Healey’s antics had many adverse effects and it is widely accepted his actions made a shitty situation far worse. I remember Max Bygraves calling himself a real life father christmas as he was one of a mere handful of people earning enough to suffer the 85% tax and 15% NI rate who did not immediately take action to move themselves AND their money out of the country When Geoffrey Howe dropped the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% the budget commentary programmes all said with one voice the one thing it had done at a stroke is removed any point in being a non UK domiciled person. So, having laid the above out, i will ask again Do you think Healey’s 98% tax rate including the 15% surtax on dividends received from investments in shares funding companies who as a result of that funding could invest in production for less than a third of the cost of borrowing from a bank was a goid idea ? As I thought no qualification other than that of many other people including me. It would be a very bad day if the C0fE had an O level and no other qualifications. so you open a thread to debate the policies of the left, and when given a serious point to debate, choose instead to belittle me as unqualified. Well, i tried to engage in a serious debate on the damage done by soundbite marxism. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 14, 2023 17:01:47 GMT
It is illegal to be racist or racially discriminate against a black person in any size shape or form, it is not illegal to so discriminate against a white person. You may call it 'redressing the balance' but in effect you are using a process that you hail as immoral to correct past immorality. Then you say white people are not discriminated against yet the positive actions laws do exactly that by favouring for training ethnic minorities and allowing as arbiter of final selection to be on a racial basis to 'correct' under representation. White people are not allowed to form any form of association where black people can be excluded but black people can in many walks of life form associations that work specifically for their ethnic group and from which white people can be excluded and will receive no benefit. In the end it comes round to opinion, you hold the opinion that we need to redress the balance and as such discriminating against white people (which is what happens) is an acceptable process. Not to mention (but I will) the teaching of white privilege and critical race theory which both place an attribute(s) on white people in the round. This is no different to those who taught at one time that black races were inferior which we accepted as being an immoral stance yet now the whole process has turned volte face. This is the leftish hypocrisy which says " I believe this, therefore it is". Wrong, racism knows no colour, it is illegal to discriminate against any person be they black, white Chinese, disabled....... It is not I that has the opinion that we need to redress the balance it is those that know when discrimination is taking place and put policies in place to remove it. The fact that most people do not believe black people are an inferior race does not mean that racism has ended, it still exists and if people who practice it continue to do so other agencies must deal with it. you DO realise the NHS transplant service website admitted black and particularly mulatto individuals are more disease prone than white ?? Maybe the eugenics guys WERE right all along |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2023 17:06:35 GMT
i have an O level in economics which means i probably know more than most chancellors of the exchequer on BOTH sides of the house. You opened this thread asking for a debate on the policies of the left. I deliberately picked this one as it speaks to the fundamental difference between the old school left and right of my youth. I have at various times since the age of 14 been employed, unemployed, self employed, a director of a limited company and an employer of staff. As such i contend that i have a wider grasp of economic reality than mist occupants of number 11 in the past century. If you pop into wikipedia you will find that on two occasions in the past both closely associated with world war 1 and 2 ‘the rich’ were taxed at 134% and 147% respectively through surcharges on funds invested. As an obvioys out and out Marxist that surely makes you glow with pride. The issue i particularly wished to discuss was Dennis Healey’s decision to screw the nuts off ‘the rich’ and the impact it actually had. I’m sure you have some grasp of how dividends and bank loans work. When i studied O Level Economics i was shown how the Bank Of England - a private company, remember - engineers things to create eleven pounds of loans from each pound invested and makes a profit of about three pounds as a result. In short, if you put a pound in a current account, the bank is required to retain about 8p of that and can create loans and overdrafts with the other 92p. But those are bank accounts for which the bank us only required to retain 8p in the pound and can therefore use 84p of the 92p overdraft / loan to person A as a loan offered to person B and 77p of that overdraft can be loaned to person C … It is the ultimate pyramid ponzi scheme and when you keep multiplying £1 by 0.92 you end up with well over eleven quid of loans with only the bank’s name, the Bank of England’s guarantee to be the lender of last resort and a prayer that the borrowers are good for the repossession of the guarantee capital if their business plans go tits up standing between us and another Lehman Brothers When i took my O level, authorised overdrafts were about 28% APR. The point i was getting at was Healey set out to destroy the ability of the corporate business sector to secure funds by the issue of share capital. Most Marxists see only the bull, and particularly the bear speculation that epitomise the worst excesses of the good for nothing middlemen profiteering from the need for business to raise finance. The fact is companies issue shares to raise money for the business and the selling and buying of such at a profit and loss masks the true worth of shares to the company, which is a way to acquire funds for which a fee is paid by declaring a dividend. Healey’s antics had many adverse effects and it is widely accepted his actions made a shitty situation far worse. I remember Max Bygraves calling himself a real life father christmas as he was one of a mere handful of people earning enough to suffer the 85% tax and 15% NI rate who did not immediately take action to move themselves AND their money out of the country When Geoffrey Howe dropped the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% the budget commentary programmes all said with one voice the one thing it had done at a stroke is removed any point in being a non UK domiciled person. So, having laid the above out, i will ask again Do you think Healey’s 98% tax rate including the 15% surtax on dividends received from investments in shares funding companies who as a result of that funding could invest in production for less than a third of the cost of borrowing from a bank was a goid idea ? As I thought no qualification other than that of many other people including me. It would be a very bad day if the C0fE had an O level and no other qualifications. Crash Gordon had a degree in History... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2023 8:19:49 GMT
There have been brutal terrorist attacks in our country committed by extremist religious fundamentalists. There have been children raped by extremist religious gangs. And Labour's response to this situation? To regard people who have a problem with fundamentalist Islam, as if they're racist. For too long, Labour has sought the votes of Islamist fundamentalists. To side with Palestine against the Israelis instead of saying "a plague on both your houses". Support the civilians, oppose fundamentalists. Oppose terrorists. Oppose Islamism. It is not racist to stand against prejudice. Labour have made rather a lot of mistakes over the last 26 years, I am not convinced they have learned from those mistakes. There have indeed been some horrendous terror attacks in our country in recent year and I believe Blair had a lot to do with that. Labour have never supported the terrorists that carry out the attacks as your post seems to imply, you can of course correct me with evidence. Labour do not seek the votes of Islamic fundamentalists as you actually claim, they do however seek the votes of minority groups that live in our country as opposed to marginalising them as some do. Labour have never supported terrorism - this is a ridiculous statement. There is no doubt that Labour have made mistakes but they have also suffered at the hands of media and conservative lies. When was the last time you saw a 'doctored' video or phot produced by Labour? When was the last time you saw a 'doctored' video or photo produced by the Conservatives? Blame Labour for what they get wrong by all means but when you start repeating lies you lose all credibility. |
|
?
