onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


General Erection - 12th December 2019


mr.hobblesworth

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Mario said:

Talking of deals what about the EU talking to the USA about a trade deal Re. Drugs which could in time lead to the NHS being privatised or dismantled.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666454/NHS-EU-killed-off-Brexit-Remain-Leave-referendum-Brussels-European-Union

The reason why the trade deal was not agreed with the US, typical Express scare story.. ISDS rules in the US, which will be part of any deal between the UK and US, the major reason to stay in the EU where we have the power of the 500,000 citizens with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

25 minutes ago, mr.hobblesworth said:

Heh, I saw that. What a repugnant, morally bankrupt bunch of liars the tories are. Johnson leading from the top.

So Labour's stated position that tax rises will only affect the top 5% and not the 95% is totally truthful is it?  My ar*e.  Even Andrew Marr resorted to calling out Angela Rayner yesterday on his show for the untruths she was peddling about the marriage allowance that will cost many hundreds of thousands of lower-paid workers an extra tax burden of £250 pa. She didn't even have the good grace or intellect to counter Marr's quite accurate description of her as he quoted; "I'm really sorry Angela Rayner but you are not being honest with the public"--all she could retort was; ."To suggest that I'm being anything but honest is disingenuous".  And then to compound her 'sin' went on to repeat the lie by stating: "Anybody in the tax bracket under £80K will not pay extra".  You have to have a certain type of thick-skin or to be just plain thick to repeat a lie that you've just been publicly called-out for.  Another example of the 'quality' of the spokesmen & women at the top of Labour!

What about their sudden new position on the WASPI women? Having claimed that their spending plans/tax plans are "fully costed" suddenly McDonnell rams a coach & horses through his original stated aim of covering current account spending only out of taxation to yesterday turn-turtle and admit that the WASPI promised money would also have to come out of borrowings--just another small "untruth" and a 'tiny' matter of an extra £58billion to add to the £83 billion already pledged--as every sensible economic commentator and the IFS has mentioned over the weekend and in this morning's papersy--it's total "fantasy land" as far as Labour's spending/tax plans are concerned and thank goodness the polls are solidly predicting that this Labour shower are never going to be allowed to get near enough to No.10 & No.11   Downing Street as a majority government to be allowed to bankcrupt the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, geosname said:

I read somewhere the industries threatened with nationalisation are moving off shore.

Of course they are.  National Grid and SSE announced last week that they were moving the parts of their operations deemed vulnerable to Labour's nationalisation palns and had registered  them in more favourable juristrictions in Switzerland, Luxembourg & Hong Kong.  This is why any economist will tell you that Labour's claim of only collecting the extra tax required from the top 5% and companies is a total fantasy and lie. It's this top percentage and companies that are totally mobile and will obviously do everything they can to escape the evil clutches of Corbyn & McDonnell.  It has always ever been thus and over history attempts like Labour's to increase tax thresholds (in this case to levels as a percentage of GDP not seen since the 70's) historically leads to lower tax revenues from these more mobile top lot and then (as will happen this time again--mark my words) transferring the burden lower down the income scales to plug the 'black holes' that will inevitably be created in their revenue predictions.  If Labour should (by some quirk of bad karma) get into power, watch out all you 'average' tax payers, you will certainly be coughing up big time to bail out Labour's failed socialist project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

So Labour's stated position that tax rises will only affect the top 5% and not the 95% is totally truthful is it?  My ar*e.  Even Andrew Marr resorted to calling out Angela Rayner yesterday on his show for the untruths she was peddling about the marriage allowance that will cost many hundreds of thousands of lower-paid workers an extra tax burden of £250 pa. She didn't even have the good grace or intellect to counter Marr's quite accurate description of her as he quoted; "I'm really sorry Angela Rayner but you are not being honest with the public"--all she could retort was; ."To suggest that I'm being anything but honest is disingenuous".  And then to compound her 'sin' went on to repeat the lie by stating: "Anybody in the tax bracket under £80K will not pay extra".  You have to have a certain type of thick-skin or to be just plain thick to repeat a lie that you've just been publicly called-out for.  Another example of the 'quality' of the spokesmen & women at the top of Labour!

What about their sudden new position on the WASPI women? Having claimed that their spending plans/tax plans are "fully costed" suddenly McDonnell rams a coach & horses through his original stated aim of covering current account spending only out of taxation to yesterday turn-turtle and admit that the WASPI promised money would also have to come out of borrowings--just another small "untruth" and a 'tiny' matter of an extra £58billion to add to the £83 billion already pledged--as every sensible economic commentator and the IFS has mentioned over the weekend and in this morning's papersy--it's total "fantasy land" as far as Labour's spending/tax plans are concerned and thank goodness the polls are solidly predicting that this Labour shower are never going to be allowed to get near enough to No.10 & No.11   Downing Street as a majority government to be allowed to bankcrupt the country.

The waspi women eh? Let's disregard the actual working age people and throw thousands at 1950's women whom are probably already enjoying paid up mortgages and holidays abroad. Let's make them richer and more affluent whilst taking pennies from the working poor....sounds familiar

Here's my verdict on that...Get stuffed Labour 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, For Us All said:

You just don't get it do you?

You’ve been shown to be a complete hypocrite so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

22 hours ago, Howjy04 said:

Which part of giving away 95% of his fortune do you not understand?Which part of virtually eradicating Polio do you not understand?How about the Malaria donation?How much should he be giving away?Or should he just pay a few dollars more in income tax and donate **** all?

Sorry, I forgot that every billionaire was giving away their fortune. If one man is your impassioned defence in favour of billionaires, then you’re scraping the barrel. Of course it’s great he says he’s going to give it away. So again, if that’s the case, and if most billionaires are the same (because it would be a bit of a pointless argument if they weren’t wouldn’t it) they won’t mind paying more tax and will have their companies do the same. They won’t need the likes of yourself fighting for their right to pay a pittance in tax (while also arguing that we can’t afford many social policies we have talked about here. Conveniently).

22 hours ago, For Us All said:

Live coverage on Question Time on Friday night told you a lot about the BBC bias.Besides the inclusion of Labour activists,trade unionists and actresses in the audience Fiona Bruce and the audience interrupted the PM over four times more than Corbyn.The Labour leader was interrupted just 11 times,Nicola Surgeon 15 times,Jo Swinson 17 times and Boris Johnson 45 times.

It seems Bruce couldn't or didn't want to control the mob outrage on a Friday night in Sheffield.

So despite being shown that he bbc political editor was actually found to be biased against Corbyn, her predecessor was a member of the Tory party, and the guy who ran the brexit and general election 2017 coverage was a brexiteer who went on to work for the conservatives, you’re still going with the ‘the bbc is biased in favour of Corbyn? Just because the politicians you look up to think their lies change reality, that isn’t actually a thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

So Labour's stated position that tax rises will only affect the top 5% and not the 95% is totally truthful is it?  My ar*e.  Even Andrew Marr resorted to calling out Angela Rayner yesterday on his show for the untruths she was peddling about the marriage allowance that will cost many hundreds of thousands of lower-paid workers an extra tax burden of £250 pa. She didn't even have the good grace or intellect to counter Marr's quite accurate description of her as he quoted; "I'm really sorry Angela Rayner but you are not being honest with the public"--all she could retort was; ."To suggest that I'm being anything but honest is disingenuous".  And then to compound her 'sin' went on to repeat the lie by stating: "Anybody in the tax bracket under £80K will not pay extra".  You have to have a certain type of thick-skin or to be just plain thick to repeat a lie that you've just been publicly called-out for.  Another example of the 'quality' of the spokesmen & women at the top of Labour!

What about their sudden new position on the WASPI women? Having claimed that their spending plans/tax plans are "fully costed" suddenly McDonnell rams a coach & horses through his original stated aim of covering current account spending only out of taxation to yesterday turn-turtle and admit that the WASPI promised money would also have to come out of borrowings--just another small "untruth" and a 'tiny' matter of an extra £58billion to add to the £83 billion already pledged--as every sensible economic commentator and the IFS has mentioned over the weekend and in this morning's papersy--it's total "fantasy land" as far as Labour's spending/tax plans are concerned and thank goodness the polls are solidly predicting that this Labour shower are never going to be allowed to get near enough to No.10 & No.11   Downing Street as a majority government to be allowed to bankcrupt the country.

Penalised for getting married,says it all really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ginge said:

Is it any different to the news today that the chap who vociferously defended corbyn on question time last week is in fact a labour staffer and social media editor? 

I also note that this guy in your link is ex labour, probably where he learnt these dirty tricks I should think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

You’ve been shown to be a complete hypocrite so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt.

Sorry, I forgot that every billionaire was giving away their fortune. If one man is your impassioned defence in favour of billionaires, then you’re scraping the barrel. Of course it’s great he says he’s going to give it away. So again, if that’s the case, and if most billionaires are the same (because it would be a bit of a pointless argument if they weren’t wouldn’t it) they won’t mind paying more tax and will have their companies do the same. They won’t need the likes of yourself fighting for their right to pay a pittance in tax (while also arguing that we can’t afford many social policies we have talked about here. Conveniently).

So despite being shown that he bbc political editor was actually found to be biased against Corbyn, her predecessor was a member of the Tory party, and the guy who ran the brexit and general election 2017 coverage was a brexiteer who went on to work for the conservatives, you’re still going with the ‘the bbc is biased in favour of Corbyn? Just because the politicians you look up to think their lies change reality, that isn’t actually a thing.  

Is that just three people then?

If you don't know what impartiality is,take a look at Andrew Neil in the week,he's got no favourites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Is it any different to the news today that the chap who vociferously defended corbyn on question time last week is in fact a labour staffer and social media editor? 

I also note that this guy in your link is ex labour, probably where he learnt these dirty tricks I should think. 

When you have an actress as a fake nurse attempting to smear the tories about the NHS and then an actress in a QT audience that had appeared in BBC productions was allowed to grill Jo Swinson,you begin to wonder what's going on?

Are you telling me the BBC didn't know who Kate Rutter was and Fiona Bruce didn't know who the "lady in the red jacket" was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Is that just three people then?

If you don't know what impartiality is,take a look at Andrew Neil in the week,he's got no favourites.

Political editors. People that decide the content. Against zero examples of yours of people who decide political content for the whole of the bbc that are members of the Labour Party and have been found to be biased. Obviously don’t expect anything of substance from the resident troll.

and that will be Andrew Neil the Conservative. Who also worked for the conservatives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...