Are the Unions damaging Labour's chance of election in 2015?

TopHat24/7 wrote:Another reason poll leads are irrelevant are that they only measure popular vote and we have a FPTP system.  So unless you can find examples of Labour poll leads in Tory held seats it's meaningless.

Duty281 wrote:Cameron will have Miliband on toast during the TV debates - just watch any of the last few PMQs to see that.

That will certainly hurt Labour, if nothing else.

Then there's the growing economy, falling unemployment, and Britain gradually turning a corner. Keep dreaming of a Labour majority, that won't happen. But nor will the Tories. They'll likely get around 38-40 percent of the vote, with Labour on about 35-37, and the liberals on 13-15, with UKIP in the outside lane on 10-12 percent.

It will be a coalition, but what?

The most likely outcome will be Labour and the Liberals. Oh dear, that'll be the certain death of Britain. A left-wing paradise.

Which country shall I emigrate to? Canada or New Zealand? I've heard nice things about Australia. Hmmm.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Cameron will have Miliband on toast during the TV debates - just watch any of the last few PMQs to see that.

That will certainly hurt Labour, if nothing else.

Then there's the growing economy, falling unemployment, and Britain gradually turning a corner. Keep dreaming of a Labour majority, that won't happen. But nor will the Tories. They'll likely get around 38-40 percent of the vote, with Labour on about 35-37, and the liberals on 13-15, with UKIP in the outside lane on 10-12 percent.

It will be a coalition, but what?

The most likely outcome will be Labour and the Liberals. Oh dear, that'll be the certain death of Britain. A left-wing paradise.

Which country shall I emigrate to? Canada or New Zealand? I've heard nice things about Australia. Hmmm.

Are you honestly happy with how the Conservatives have been running the country for the last 3 years? They have been using the idea of debt reduction as a disguise to allow them to impose ideologial punishments to the poor.

This government seem to think that the only way to reduce the deficit is by attacking the poor. How in the same year they justified an increase in VAT to 20% and a reduction in income tax for people earning over 150k to 45% is beyond me.

If you are super rich then vote Conservative because they like to look after their own. They have given the super rich tax cuts on their earnings over 150k and they have purposefully reduced the standard of living for the poor and middle classes so that people become pooer and more desperate so that they are forced to work longer hours for less pay in poorer working conditions in companies owned by David Cameron's rich Conservative voting friends.

If you think the cuts to welfare and standards of living are to cut the deficit then you believe in a lie, lots of the cuts are ideological cuts designed to cut the standard of living, make people poorer so that they are forced to do what the rich landowners want them to do.

Do you think cuts to EMA and an increase in tuition fees was to reduce the debt? It's real purpose was to reduce the number of poor and working class people from getting an education because too many poor or working class young people were getting an education and working in better paid jobs and the conservatves were worried that no one was left to work in the low paid jobs.  

The conservatives opposed the national minimum wage, the conservatives are in favour of scrapping certain employment protecctions such as unfair dismissal. The conservatives want the working class to earn less money and have less protections at work so that they are more desperate and more vulnerable and thus it is easier for david cameron's rich employer friends to manipulate their employees.

Every single Conservative cut is aimed at the poor.

David Cameron might sound good on tv in a debate but if you have had your housing benefit cut by 25% because you have a spare bedroom in a house you have lived in for 40 years and refuse to move to a smaller house in sometimes a different city then you will not fall for his lies.

If you are an unemployed person who has been told that he has to pay up to 30% of his Council Tax bill whch could be as much as £25 a week out of your £55 a week JSA you will not vote onservative.

If you are a disabled person whose disability benefit has been cut you will not vote for Mr Cameron.

If you are a bright young school leaver from a poor family who has been told he has no access to EMA to help fund his college studies you will not vote conservative.

All of the above and much more has been in the name of the country having no money yet somehow david cameron has managed to find £50 billion pounds under his sofa to fund a rail link from London to Manchester even though we already have a rail link from london to manchester but this new rail link is 30 minutes faster.

If you are middle class or working class do not be fooled into voting conservative because your standard of living will go down. You might be upset about immigration or crime etc but voting conservative will not stop those problems and it will just result in your wallet having less money in it.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Cameron will have Miliband on toast during the TV debates - just watch any of the last few PMQs to see that.

That will certainly hurt Labour, if nothing else.

Then there's the growing economy, falling unemployment, and Britain gradually turning a corner. Keep dreaming of a Labour majority, that won't happen. But nor will the Tories. They'll likely get around 38-40 percent of the vote, with Labour on about 35-37, and the liberals on 13-15, with UKIP in the outside lane on 10-12 percent.

It will be a coalition, but what?

The most likely outcome will be Labour and the Liberals. Oh dear, that'll be the certain death of Britain. A left-wing paradise.

Which country shall I emigrate to? Canada or New Zealand? I've heard nice things about Australia. Hmmm.

Are you honestly happy with how the Conservatives have been running the country for the last 3 years? They have been using the idea of debt reduction as a disguise to allow them to impose ideologial punishments to the poor.

This government seem to think that the only way to reduce the deficit is by attacking the poor. How in the same year they justified an increase in VAT to 20% and a reduction in income tax for people earning over 150k to 45% is beyond me.

If you are super rich then vote Conservative because they like to look after their own. They have given the super rich tax cuts on their earnings over 150k and they have purposefully reduced the standard of living for the poor and middle classes so that people become pooer and more desperate so that they are forced to work longer hours for less pay in poorer working conditions in companies owned by David Cameron's rich Conservative voting friends.

If you think the cuts to welfare and standards of living are to cut the deficit then you believe in a lie, lots of the cuts are ideological cuts designed to cut the standard of living, make people poorer so that they are forced to do what the rich landowners want them to do.

Do you think cuts to EMA and an increase in tuition fees was to reduce the debt? It's real purpose was to reduce the number of poor and working class people from getting an education because too many poor or working class young people were getting an education and working in better paid jobs and the conservatves were worried that no one was left to work in the low paid jobs.  

The conservatives opposed the national minimum wage, the conservatives are in favour of scrapping certain employment protecctions such as unfair dismissal. The conservatives want the working class to earn less money and have less protections at work so that they are more desperate and more vulnerable and thus it is easier for david cameron's rich employer friends to manipulate their employees.

Every single Conservative cut is aimed at the poor.

David Cameron might sound good on tv in a debate but if you have had your housing benefit cut by 25% because you have a spare bedroom in a house you have lived in for 40 years and refuse to move to a smaller house in sometimes a different city then you will not fall for his lies.

If you are an unemployed person who has been told that he has to pay up to 30% of his Council Tax bill whch could be as much as £25 a week out of your £55 a week JSA you will not vote onservative.

If you are a disabled person whose disability benefit has been cut you will not vote for Mr Cameron.

If you are a bright young school leaver from a poor family who has been told he has no access to EMA to help fund his college studies you will not vote conservative.

All of the above and much more has been in the name of the country having no money yet somehow david cameron has managed to find £50 billion pounds under his sofa to fund a rail link from London to Manchester even though we already have a rail link from london to manchester but this new rail link is 30 minutes faster.

If you are middle class or working class do not be fooled into voting conservative because your standard of living will go down. You might be upset about immigration or crime etc but voting conservative will not stop those problems and it will just result in your wallet having less money in it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Polls are irrelevant to this guy because the Tories are behind.......

Polls are very relevant especially when they are all pointing the same way......

But he is right that it's not the lead.......it's the share and that's a constant 36% +

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Just posting his career and then ripping off a cheap Phil Collins/Sun headline doesn’t really add anything.

seanmichaels wrote:selling our stockpile of gold at rock bottom prices.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sorry..........I didn't read it......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What do you think of Labour's chances.......??

you agree with my points....

Mind the windows Tino. wrote: There are some people I work with who would vote Conservative if they put Ian Brady up as their representative.  Likewise there are Labour voters here who would vote for Katie Price if she was a candidate.  

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:selling our stockpile of gold at rock bottom prices.

I have no problems with Brown carrying the can, he was the Chancellor and that comes with the job, but let’s not pretend it was his decision alone.  Do we go back and ask the previous Tory Chancellor what he thought when he ratified the plan?  

This is the whole point about personality politics.  Your agenda is coming from the right whereas others don’t.  Like you, I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘political’ person but I would certainly try and get a fuller picture of the facts if I had a clear agenda to push.

A great deal of Gordon Brown’s economic strategy would strike a sane man as troubling. Not a great deal was mysterious. The orgy of consumption spending, frequent extensions of the cycle over which he would “borrow to invest”, proclamations of the “end of boom and bust”: these are part of the armoury of modern politicians, of all political hues.
 
One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain’s gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce, only to watch it soar so far as $1,615 per ounce today.
 
When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.
 
First, he broke with convention and announced the sale well in advance, giving the market notice that it was shortly to be flooded and forcing down the spot price. This was apparently done in the interests of “open government”, but had the effect of sending the spot price of gold to a 20-year low, as implied by basic supply and demand theory.
 
Second, the Treasury elected to sell its gold via auction. Again, this broke with the standard model. The price of gold was usually determined at a morning and afternoon "fix" between representatives of big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply.
 
The auction system again frequently achieved a lower price than the equivalent fix price. The first auction saw an auction price of $10c less per ounce than was achieved at the morning fix. It also acted to depress the price of the afternoon fix which fell by nearly $4.
 
It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.
 
One of the most popular trading plays of the late 1990s was the carry trade, particularly the gold carry trade.
 
In this a bank would borrow gold from another financial institution for a set period, and pay a token sum relative to the overall value of that gold for the privilege.
 
Once control of the gold had been passed over, the bank would then immediately sell it for its full market value. The proceeds would be invested in an alternative product which was predicted to generate a better return over the period than gold which was enduring a spell of relative price stability, even decline.
 
At the end of the allotted period, the bank would sell its investment and use the proceeds to buy back the amount of gold it had originally borrowed. This gold would be returned to the lender. The borrowing bank would trouser the difference between the two prices.
 
This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.
 
This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.
 
Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.
 
Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.
 
I spoke with Peter Hambro, chairman of Petroplavosk and a leading figure in the London gold market, late last year and asked him about the rumours above.
 
“I think that Mr Brown found himself in a terrible position,” he said.
 
“He was facing a problem that was a world scale problem where a number of financial institutions had become voluntarily short of gold to the extent that it was threatening the stability of the financial system and it was obvious that something had to be done.”
 
While the market manipulation which occurred when the gold reserves were sold was not illegal as the abuse at Barclays may have been, the moral atmosphere in which it took place was identical.
 
The crash which began in 2007 and endures still was the result of an abdication of responsibility across the financial sector. This abdication ranged from the consumer whose thirst for goods pushed him beyond into grave debt to a government whose lust for popularity encouraged it to do the same.
 
Responsibility is evaded by all bar those on whose shoulders it ought to rest. The gold panic of 1999 was expensively paid for by the British public. The one thing politicians ought to have bought with that money was a lesson in the structural restraints which needed to be placed on banks now that the principle that they were ultimately public liabilities had been established.
 
It was a lesson which could have acted to restrain all players in the credit market boom of the 2000s. It was a lesson which nobody learnt.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Cameron will have Miliband on toast during the TV debates - just watch any of the last few PMQs to see that.

That will certainly hurt Labour, if nothing else.

Then there's the growing economy, falling unemployment, and Britain gradually turning a corner. Keep dreaming of a Labour majority, that won't happen. But nor will the Tories. They'll likely get around 38-40 percent of the vote, with Labour on about 35-37, and the liberals on 13-15, with UKIP in the outside lane on 10-12 percent.

It will be a coalition, but what?

The most likely outcome will be Labour and the Liberals. Oh dear, that'll be the certain death of Britain. A left-wing paradise.

Which country shall I emigrate to? Canada or New Zealand? I've heard nice things about Australia. Hmmm.

Are you honestly happy with how the Conservatives have been running the country for the last 3 years? They have been using the idea of debt reduction as a disguise to allow them to impose ideologial punishments to the poor.

This government seem to think that the only way to reduce the deficit is by attacking the poor. How in the same year they justified an increase in VAT to 20% and a reduction in income tax for people earning over 150k to 45% is beyond me.

If you are super rich then vote Conservative because they like to look after their own. They have given the super rich tax cuts on their earnings over 150k and they have purposefully reduced the standard of living for the poor and middle classes so that people become pooer and more desperate so that they are forced to work longer hours for less pay in poorer working conditions in companies owned by David Cameron's rich Conservative voting friends.

If you think the cuts to welfare and standards of living are to cut the deficit then you believe in a lie, lots of the cuts are ideological cuts designed to cut the standard of living, make people poorer so that they are forced to do what the rich landowners want them to do.

Do you think cuts to EMA and an increase in tuition fees was to reduce the debt? It's real purpose was to reduce the number of poor and working class people from getting an education because too many poor or working class young people were getting an education and working in better paid jobs and the conservatves were worried that no one was left to work in the low paid jobs.  

The conservatives opposed the national minimum wage, the conservatives are in favour of scrapping certain employment protecctions such as unfair dismissal. The conservatives want the working class to earn less money and have less protections at work so that they are more desperate and more vulnerable and thus it is easier for david cameron's rich employer friends to manipulate their employees.

Every single Conservative cut is aimed at the poor.

David Cameron might sound good on tv in a debate but if you have had your housing benefit cut by 25% because you have a spare bedroom in a house you have lived in for 40 years and refuse to move to a smaller house in sometimes a different city then you will not fall for his lies.

If you are an unemployed person who has been told that he has to pay up to 30% of his Council Tax bill whch could be as much as £25 a week out of your £55 a week JSA you will not vote onservative.

If you are a disabled person whose disability benefit has been cut you will not vote for Mr Cameron.

If you are a bright young school leaver from a poor family who has been told he has no access to EMA to help fund his college studies you will not vote conservative.

All of the above and much more has been in the name of the country having no money yet somehow david cameron has managed to find £50 billion pounds under his sofa to fund a rail link from London to Manchester even though we already have a rail link from london to manchester but this new rail link is 30 minutes faster.

If you are middle class or working class do not be fooled into voting conservative because your standard of living will go down. You might be upset about immigration or crime etc but voting conservative will not stop those problems and it will just result in your wallet having less money in it.

Who don't vote.

If they'd exercise their democratic rights a little more they wouldn't be in such a quagmire.

And, to answer your original question, yes I'm very happy with how the Tories are running show (though a million miles from perfect) and think Labour will basically come in a ruin everything if they get power.  

My wallet has a lot more money in it thanks to the conversatives.

Not sure why you always preach and lecture about government spending either since you've actively chosen to avoid paying anything into the pot anyway.

seanmichaels wrote:
I am not pretending it was his decision alone. He probably received a fair bit of advice from his sidekicks Balls and Milliband which is the worry given both have risen to the top of the tree in the labour party.
 
With respect to the conservatives ratifying the plan, the h-bomb was built the last century but if some nutter presses the button now it will be him and not those scientists carrying the can. Labour had their finger on the trigger and it was Brown who pulled it.
  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Vote blue go green remember that........Now he's U turning on that.......  

There is a site where you can see all the U-turns he's made in 3 years......Over 40..

Universal credit is next by the way...........

and Milband is WEAK..........geez.

Thatcher bless her had more rocks..........Ten times the leader this guy is.

Say it again Blair was hugely popular and only got 43 % in 1997.........

Cammy-boy should have gone for electoral reform before HOL reform-deemck-reform.......Osbourne missed a trick there....

Got to be 7 points ahead and I can't see it.......With the left wing Libbies added on to the core 29%........

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Cameron will have Miliband on toast during the TV debates - just watch any of the last few PMQs to see that.

That will certainly hurt Labour, if nothing else.

Then there's the growing economy, falling unemployment, and Britain gradually turning a corner. Keep dreaming of a Labour majority, that won't happen. But nor will the Tories. They'll likely get around 38-40 percent of the vote, with Labour on about 35-37, and the liberals on 13-15, with UKIP in the outside lane on 10-12 percent.

It will be a coalition, but what?

The most likely outcome will be Labour and the Liberals. Oh dear, that'll be the certain death of Britain. A left-wing paradise.

Which country shall I emigrate to? Canada or New Zealand? I've heard nice things about Australia. Hmmm.

Are you honestly happy with how the Conservatives have been running the country for the last 3 years? They have been using the idea of debt reduction as a disguise to allow them to impose ideologial punishments to the poor.

This government seem to think that the only way to reduce the deficit is by attacking the poor. How in the same year they justified an increase in VAT to 20% and a reduction in income tax for people earning over 150k to 45% is beyond me.

If you are super rich then vote Conservative because they like to look after their own. They have given the super rich tax cuts on their earnings over 150k and they have purposefully reduced the standard of living for the poor and middle classes so that people become pooer and more desperate so that they are forced to work longer hours for less pay in poorer working conditions in companies owned by David Cameron's rich Conservative voting friends.

If you think the cuts to welfare and standards of living are to cut the deficit then you believe in a lie, lots of the cuts are ideological cuts designed to cut the standard of living, make people poorer so that they are forced to do what the rich landowners want them to do.

Do you think cuts to EMA and an increase in tuition fees was to reduce the debt? It's real purpose was to reduce the number of poor and working class people from getting an education because too many poor or working class young people were getting an education and working in better paid jobs and the conservatves were worried that no one was left to work in the low paid jobs.  

The conservatives opposed the national minimum wage, the conservatives are in favour of scrapping certain employment protecctions such as unfair dismissal. The conservatives want the working class to earn less money and have less protections at work so that they are more desperate and more vulnerable and thus it is easier for david cameron's rich employer friends to manipulate their employees.

Every single Conservative cut is aimed at the poor.

David Cameron might sound good on tv in a debate but if you have had your housing benefit cut by 25% because you have a spare bedroom in a house you have lived in for 40 years and refuse to move to a smaller house in sometimes a different city then you will not fall for his lies.

If you are an unemployed person who has been told that he has to pay up to 30% of his Council Tax bill whch could be as much as £25 a week out of your £55 a week JSA you will not vote onservative.

If you are a disabled person whose disability benefit has been cut you will not vote for Mr Cameron.

If you are a bright young school leaver from a poor family who has been told he has no access to EMA to help fund his college studies you will not vote conservative.

All of the above and much more has been in the name of the country having no money yet somehow david cameron has managed to find £50 billion pounds under his sofa to fund a rail link from London to Manchester even though we already have a rail link from london to manchester but this new rail link is 30 minutes faster.

If you are middle class or working class do not be fooled into voting conservative because your standard of living will go down. You might be upset about immigration or crime etc but voting conservative will not stop those problems and it will just result in your wallet having less money in it.

Who don't vote.

If they'd exercise their democratic rights a little more they wouldn't be in such a quagmire.

And, to answer your original question, yes I'm very happy with how the Tories are running show (though a million miles from perfect) and think Labour will basically come in a ruin everything if they get power.  

My wallet has a lot more money in it thanks to the conversatives.

Not sure why you always preach and lecture about government spending either since you've actively chosen to avoid paying anything into the pot anyway.

Can you name all the different ways people pay tax? if not use google to help you out. Even people on benefits pay tax.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Cameron will have Miliband on toast during the TV debates - just watch any of the last few PMQs to see that.

That will certainly hurt Labour, if nothing else.

Then there's the growing economy, falling unemployment, and Britain gradually turning a corner. Keep dreaming of a Labour majority, that won't happen. But nor will the Tories. They'll likely get around 38-40 percent of the vote, with Labour on about 35-37, and the liberals on 13-15, with UKIP in the outside lane on 10-12 percent.

It will be a coalition, but what?

The most likely outcome will be Labour and the Liberals. Oh dear, that'll be the certain death of Britain. A left-wing paradise.

Which country shall I emigrate to? Canada or New Zealand? I've heard nice things about Australia. Hmmm.

Are you honestly happy with how the Conservatives have been running the country for the last 3 years? They have been using the idea of debt reduction as a disguise to allow them to impose ideologial punishments to the poor.

This government seem to think that the only way to reduce the deficit is by attacking the poor. How in the same year they justified an increase in VAT to 20% and a reduction in income tax for people earning over 150k to 45% is beyond me.

If you are super rich then vote Conservative because they like to look after their own. They have given the super rich tax cuts on their earnings over 150k and they have purposefully reduced the standard of living for the poor and middle classes so that people become pooer and more desperate so that they are forced to work longer hours for less pay in poorer working conditions in companies owned by David Cameron's rich Conservative voting friends.

If you think the cuts to welfare and standards of living are to cut the deficit then you believe in a lie, lots of the cuts are ideological cuts designed to cut the standard of living, make people poorer so that they are forced to do what the rich landowners want them to do.

Do you think cuts to EMA and an increase in tuition fees was to reduce the debt? It's real purpose was to reduce the number of poor and working class people from getting an education because too many poor or working class young people were getting an education and working in better paid jobs and the conservatves were worried that no one was left to work in the low paid jobs.  

The conservatives opposed the national minimum wage, the conservatives are in favour of scrapping certain employment protecctions such as unfair dismissal. The conservatives want the working class to earn less money and have less protections at work so that they are more desperate and more vulnerable and thus it is easier for david cameron's rich employer friends to manipulate their employees.

Every single Conservative cut is aimed at the poor.

David Cameron might sound good on tv in a debate but if you have had your housing benefit cut by 25% because you have a spare bedroom in a house you have lived in for 40 years and refuse to move to a smaller house in sometimes a different city then you will not fall for his lies.

If you are an unemployed person who has been told that he has to pay up to 30% of his Council Tax bill whch could be as much as £25 a week out of your £55 a week JSA you will not vote onservative.

If you are a disabled person whose disability benefit has been cut you will not vote for Mr Cameron.

If you are a bright young school leaver from a poor family who has been told he has no access to EMA to help fund his college studies you will not vote conservative.

All of the above and much more has been in the name of the country having no money yet somehow david cameron has managed to find £50 billion pounds under his sofa to fund a rail link from London to Manchester even though we already have a rail link from london to manchester but this new rail link is 30 minutes faster.

If you are middle class or working class do not be fooled into voting conservative because your standard of living will go down. You might be upset about immigration or crime etc but voting conservative will not stop those problems and it will just result in your wallet having less money in it.

Who don't vote.

If they'd exercise their democratic rights a little more they wouldn't be in such a quagmire.

And, to answer your original question, yes I'm very happy with how the Tories are running show (though a million miles from perfect) and think Labour will basically come in a ruin everything if they get power.  

My wallet has a lot more money in it thanks to the conversatives.

Not sure why you always preach and lecture about government spending either since you've actively chosen to avoid paying anything into the pot anyway.

Can you name all the different ways people pay tax? if not use google to help you out. Even people on benefits pay tax.

Income tax is the biggest single source of tax income and you deliberately avoid.  You pay a little amount of VAT and that's it.  No NI, no SDLT. Maybe some council tax.  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think we've won the argument kiddo.... 

How is the bodybuilding going ?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think we've won the argument kiddo.... 

How is the bodybuilding going ?

Fail to see how.



https://www.606v2.com/f191-weightlifting

TopHat24/7 wrote:You chose a way of deriving income (gambling) that deliberately allowed you to avoid paying any tax.

With an education half as impressive as you make out you have, getting a job is far from impossible, so don't make out like you're some hard-up serf continually screwed by 'the man' and condemned to a life of welfare dependency and turnip eating.

IF, you are to be believed, then your weekly income was more than I was getting as a grad when I first started work in 2007 and I paid tax and NI on that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think we've won the argument kiddo.... 

How is the bodybuilding going ?

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:You chose a way of deriving income (gambling) that deliberately allowed you to avoid paying any tax.

With an education half as impressive as you make out you have, getting a job is far from impossible, so don't make out like you're some hard-up serf continually screwed by 'the man' and condemned to a life of welfare dependency and turnip eating.

IF, you are to be believed, then your weekly income was more than I was getting as a grad when I first started work in 2007 and I paid tax and NI on that.

Uunder UK taxation laws gambling profits are not subject to tax. It is physically impossible for me to pay tax on my gambling profits even if I wanted to as it is illegal for the tax man to collect any tax on gambling profits. I do make donations to charity however (nspcc).

You keep talking about me not paying income tax on my gambling profits and that is just highlighting your limited knowledge of taxation laws. Income tax is a tax on income derived from employment, going to the casino and putting £100 on number 18 on roulette and winning is not a form of employment and thus is not subject to income tax. You attacking me constantly for not paying income tax on my gambling profits is as silly as you saying I should pay capital gains tax on gambling profits or corporation tax because all of those taxes have no relevance to gambling profits.

Perhaps you are in favour of taxing gambling profits but that would mean everyone who wins £10 on a scratch card has to pay tax on it or an old granny winning £40 at bingo has to pay tax on it or a few lads heading to the casino to play blackjack on a saturday night and get lucky and win £100 have to pay tax on it.

If you are going to tax gambling profits because the gambler has managed to increase their capital then you need to also offer tax breaks for gambling losses because the gambler has reduced their capital.

But like I said it is physically impossible in the Uk to pay tax on any gambling profits and once again the fact you keep talking about me avoiding tax on gambling just shows your lack of knowledge of taxation laws. You can't avoid a tax that does not exist.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Very quick to insult isn't he......Which makes it hard to debate with him......

Ipsos Mori.........Yougov and other pollsters have.........

Economy, Health, crime, education as the most important factors on whether people vote.......Unions aren't even a consideration......

Miliband is distancing himself because  Unite are an embarrassment...............

Foot got 28% with lot's of loonies.........Brown got 29% without a problem with unions.....

Foot had the SDP...

Unions aren't a factor.....Only for Tories  as Europe is.......