I notice none bar jiz, of the labour supporters, wanted to answer about the minimum wage/maximum wage so I'll give it another go for "the common people man" corbyn Currently the U.K.operates under the european work time directive limiting work hours to 42 hours unless...you sign an opt out allowing YOU to decide how many hours and how much money YOU want to earn. The current start rate to pay tax is £12,500 Labours 2019 general election manifesto under the group heading of work Page 59....We will rapidly introduce a Real Living Wage of at least £10 per hour for all workers aged 16 and over, Page 62....Within a decade we will reduce average full-time weekly working hours to 32 across the economy, with no loss of pay, funded by productivity increases. We will meet this target by: • Ending the opt-out provision for the EU Working Time Directive and enforcing working-time regulations. In numbers terms, if you are on £10 an hour and are legally restricted to 32 hours so earning no more than £320 before stoppages, how will you manage? Honestly? you won't, you will however be part of the new massive wave of people now seeking working tax credits and every government assistance you can get. Huge increases in the dwp budgets that have not been mentioned or costed How is labour restricting the hours you want to work going to help those who want to build their own business? Most of those I know who are self employed often work stupid hours at the beginning to make things work If you see your labour candidate just ask them, why are you trying to legally stop me from earning what I want https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
I wondered who would fall for it first...Independent trade experts from the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) I say that because uktpo is actually a partnership body between the University of Sussex and Chatham House, both of whom have been firmly in the remain camp so hardly independent or the body they sought to hide behind a different name
That an academic body shares and agrees an opinion doesn't mean the content is biased nor flawed. If you had ever had an original thought in your life you would know that someone would likely share and agree with it; would that make your opinion automatically suspect? So predictable!
They have both advocated remain in their separate guises since 2016 how does that fit in with the term "independent"?
Where's the reasoning behind that?! The highest rate of income tax under the previous Labour government was 40% up until the last month that they were in office (April/May 2010). From April 2010, a new higher rate of 50% was introduced for earnings above £150K, together with a more severe tax increase via tapered withdrawal of personal allowance for those with earnings of more than £100K. The only "tax cut for higher earners" that the coalition introduced was a reduction from 50% to 45% of that top rate, but as the Labour government never took tax at that rate, it was essentially only a small cut to a larger tax increase that had been imposed, in effect, under the coalition government, so those £150K+ higher earners have clearly been worse off since 2010 than they were before then. The personal allowance withdrawal aspect has not changed at all (so that's 60% rate on some earnings above £100K that was never really levied by Labour). Also, the coalition introduced withdrawal of Child Benefit from "high earners" (in the sense of those families where one earner receives more than £50K), and major cuts in pension savings allowances - for instance the annual allowance for pension savings was £255K under Labour (introduced by Gordon and that really is relevant for genuinely high earners, not those on £50K !) but that figure has since has since been reduced massively by Osborne and Hammond to £40K. Hammond also unwisely introduced the complicated pensions Annual Allowance tapering reductions for some high earners, now causing problems in the NHS.
Our poll is interesting. Lib Dems have 50% more votes than Labour. And those that are backing brexit now top 71%.... bloody marvellous
Interesting! https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...censored-out-by-the-bbc-and-mainstream-media/ "The exception to the rule has been Esher and Walton, where there has been some brief media mention of the anti-Tory surge purely because it makes Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, a possible loser. But again I have not seen one single vox pop from there with voters explaining why they are deserting the Tories. And again the swing is absolutely massive, with YouGov measuring a 19.6% swing from Tory to Lib Dem in voting intention and only another 1% swing needed to get rid of Raab. This is much higher than any of the fabled swings against Labour in Northern England." I wouldn't mind Waab being out on his smug arse!
I see that during the whole Labour government national debt stated below 50% until those entrepreneurial capitalists (and creators of wealth ) the bankers went Tits up in 2008. Even then by the end of their term it was 65% GDP. So perhaps the question is how have the Tories taken national debt to 85% of GDP. You must have another theory. TB
I note that you have not contradicted anything I've said about taxes on higher earners in fact being HIGHER since the last Labour government, not lower. Deficit and debt are facts of life, not a "theory". You'll see from the graph that you posted "Total National Debt UK FY06 to FY19" that the debt started to rise much more rapidly from 2008 onwards - it was already rising, which is not unusual, but the events of 2008 created a huge (and not one-year-only!) dent in the public finances; it was a drastic change which resulted in lower government tax take (the economy shrank, businesses made less money for the government), and it led to a huge budget deficit - that's the amount of borrowing HMG had to make every year to fund the gap between tax revenue and government spending (which had been rising fast before 2008). The deficit was more than £100bn per year, and that compounds into increasing total debt, obviously, with the interest on all that debt meaning that annual expenditure had to rise to cover that as well. "Austerity" slowly reduced that deficit, but the debt can't be reduced at all until the government takes in more tax in a year than it spends; nobody knows when that might be because the spending commitments are so large. Your theory may be that the government back in 2010, and the one you'd like next week, should borrow much more, spend much more, and that then everything would be rosy. It's only a theory though, and one big problem with it is that there is only a limited pool of labour (i.e. people who want to work for money) and it's not big enough to cover all of the extravagant spending plans - that would create inflation, and a need for further increases in immigration which would generate its own increased demand for resources like housing, schools, etc. I expect Diane Abbot could explain how the immigration will work though, along with how the figures would then add up.
Ok... we all know who deserves to win and they will. Voter turn out.... I'm calling it.. Uk overall 69% London 72%* Finderman's lot........ 65%. * Mainly due to labour postal voting fraud and that's why we need passport ID at voting stations. Postal voting should be abolished to help reduce fraud.
Big day today. Today is the day when we decide on how we want the UK to be destroyed as a nation. Choose wisely now!
