Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The dilemma
Topic Started: Sep 3 2015, 07:16 AM (704 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Assuming Corbyn wins how is he going to form a Shadow Cabinet? Surely anyone with aspiration, such as current competitors would try and keep a distance?

Quote:
 
“Labour could be about to make an entire generation of future ministers radioactive. If people serve under Corbyn we’ll simply be able to say to them 'you told the British people you backed Jeremy Corbyn to be their next prime minister. Either you genuinely believed that – in which case you’re unfit for office. Or you were lying – in which case you’re unfit for office'."
It’s hard to see how anyone who served under Jeremy Corbyn – and demonstrated collective support for his agenda – would be able to “decontaminate” themselves sufficiently to have a realistic chance of winning a general election in 2020.
- Dan Hodges

LINK

It looks like a few years of internecine warfare in the Labour Camp is on the agenda, with targets for deselection doing the rounds. We will see exactly what I have been saying for years and that is that Labour still has a rump of wannabe Commies in their ranks. They were not purged by the Welsh-windbag, they just hid in closets.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 4 2015, 08:02 AM
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 07:59 AM
That is not proof. Try and stick to the claim if able.

RJD don't you EVER watch any news and current affairs. (You are always referencing the Torygraph, there has been a lot of detail about it over the past year.)
If I referenced proof you wouldn't read it.
You have no proof to substantiate H's claim which is specific to total income not ownership of assets. Best you start to understand the very basics before spouting off. Yes I know you are glued to the TV, but some of us try to have a bit of life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 02:41 AM
Affa
Sep 3 2015, 09:10 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 3 2015, 07:12 PM

Its what lying sleazeballs do after all
I at one time was of the opinion that what you described here was exactly what was required to govern the nation ....... I changed when i witnessed how damaging it can be when the perpetrators do not have the nation's prosperity as their objective .........
The problem with a concept like "the nation's prosperity" is that it ends up in the pockets of bankers, financiers, and chief executive officers, instead of the country's services, schools, and hospitals.
The bankers, financiers and chief executive officers pay taxes that pay for the schools and hospitals. More than half of what they are paid is taken in taxes, Earn a million and the government gets half in direct taxation, that's £500,000 even before indirect taxation. I don't see what your objections are all about. They pay their fair share of tax, but never in your eyes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Sep 4 2015, 10:07 AM
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 02:41 AM
Affa
Sep 3 2015, 09:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The problem with a concept like "the nation's prosperity" is that it ends up in the pockets of bankers, financiers, and chief executive officers, instead of the country's services, schools, and hospitals.
The bankers, financiers and chief executive officers pay taxes that pay for the schools and hospitals. More than half of what they are paid is taken in taxes, Earn a million and the government gets half in direct taxation, that's £500,000 even before indirect taxation. I don't see what your objections are all about. They pay their fair share of tax, but never in your eyes.
PS . I have just had the good news that I have been taken of the self assessment tax requirement. Every year I get tax repaid, so they think if I don't self assess they will get more tax out of me. They can keep the difference , a couple of hundred or so, to help the country and the poor and needy.
:rubchin:
Brownie points for me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Sep 4 2015, 10:07 AM
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 02:41 AM
Affa
Sep 3 2015, 09:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The problem with a concept like "the nation's prosperity" is that it ends up in the pockets of bankers, financiers, and chief executive officers, instead of the country's services, schools, and hospitals.
The bankers, financiers and chief executive officers pay taxes that pay for the schools and hospitals. More than half of what they are paid is taken in taxes, Earn a million and the government gets half in direct taxation, that's £500,000 even before indirect taxation. I don't see what your objections are all about. They pay their fair share of tax, but never in your eyes.
Outlandish disparity of incomes which reward the CEOs of failing banks and shady financial operators is an obscenity tolerated by a government of the rich by the rich and for the rich.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 10:20 AM
Tytoalba
Sep 4 2015, 10:07 AM
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 02:41 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The bankers, financiers and chief executive officers pay taxes that pay for the schools and hospitals. More than half of what they are paid is taken in taxes, Earn a million and the government gets half in direct taxation, that's £500,000 even before indirect taxation. I don't see what your objections are all about. They pay their fair share of tax, but never in your eyes.
Outlandish disparity of incomes which reward the CEOs of failing banks and shady financial operators is an obscenity tolerated by a government of the rich by the rich and for the rich.

Posted Image
The UK is not a Communist State and the PM cannot regulate how much the Board of Directors of a private company decide to reward the CEO for his/her services. That is a matter for Shareholders and if you are not one of these none of your business. Think UK CEOs are overpaid? Then don't look over the Pond.

Still waiting for you to justify your claim that these "Captains of Industry and Commerce" are taking the Lions Share of total incomes/revenues from such economic activities leaving less than 50% for the rest of the working population. Sounds like BS too me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 04:14 PM
Think UK CEOs are overpaid? Then don't look over the Pond.
Justify this:-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/high-pay-centre-ftse-100-ceo-pay-versus-average-salary-2015-8

British bosses are paid 183 times the average worker's salary
Lianna Brinded

Aug. 17, 2015, 7:47 AM



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 4 2015, 05:29 PM
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 04:14 PM
Think UK CEOs are overpaid? Then don't look over the Pond.
Justify this:-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/high-pay-centre-ftse-100-ceo-pay-versus-average-salary-2015-8

British bosses are paid 183 times the average worker's salary
Lianna Brinded

Aug. 17, 2015, 7:47 AM



Why should I? With a private company it is the business of Shareholders and if they wish to pay their CEO obscene salaries and bonuses then I have no right to complain. There is no Law no Regulation no Tablet of Stone handed down by Moses that inhibits Shareholders paying what they wish. Whilst we can condemn as obscene, vulgar or damn right insulting, I for one would be against State interference.
The unfortunate thing is that some companies (Boards of Directors) see the amount they reward their top Directors as akin to a fashion statement and if they do not pay big bucks who would believe them to be serious. Of course it is mostly bunkum, but State regulation would be a dangerous interference.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 05:53 PM
Why should I? With a private company it is the business of Shareholders and if they wish to pay their CEO obscene salaries and bonuses then I have no right to complain.
RJD yes you do, you just have no desire to, and more worryingly you don't see the ever widening gap as a problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 07:30 AM
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 02:41 AM
Affa
Sep 3 2015, 09:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
The problem with a concept like "the nation's prosperity" is that it ends up in the pockets of bankers, financiers, and chief executive officers, instead of the country's services, schools, and hospitals.
Really? You think that the amounts gained by such people totally outweigh that received by the rest of the working population together?
The "nation's prosperity" does not mean that all individuals who make up the nation have a God given right to an equal share. That's Marxist bull.

I don't need to "think it" I can find people who have proved it

A total of 447 people oen, between them, MORE than the poorest 50% of the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 07:30 AM
Heinrich
Sep 4 2015, 02:41 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Really? You think that the amounts gained by such people totally outweigh that received by the rest of the working population together?
The "nation's prosperity" does not mean that all individuals who make up the nation have a God given right to an equal share. That's Marxist bull.

I don't need to "think it" I can find people who have proved it

A total of 447 people oen, between them, MORE than the poorest 50% of the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
So?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 5 2015, 11:54 AM
johnofgwent
Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 07:30 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I don't need to "think it" I can find people who have proved it

A total of 447 people oen, between them, MORE than the poorest 50% of the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
So?
That sums up your attitude to life in a nutshell. !clp!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM
I don't need to "think it" I can find people who have proved it

A total of 447 people oen, between them, MORE than the poorest 50% of the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
John that article is so 1996. Sunday 21 July 1996 in fact so why is it relevant now?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 05:53 PM
papasmurf
Sep 4 2015, 05:29 PM
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 04:14 PM
Think UK CEOs are overpaid? Then don't look over the Pond.
Justify this:-

http://uk.businessinsider.com/high-pay-centre-ftse-100-ceo-pay-versus-average-salary-2015-8

British bosses are paid 183 times the average worker's salary
Lianna Brinded

Aug. 17, 2015, 7:47 AM



Why should I? With a private company it is the business of Shareholders and if they wish to pay their CEO obscene salaries and bonuses then I have no right to complain. There is no Law no Regulation no Tablet of Stone handed down by Moses that inhibits Shareholders paying what they wish. Whilst we can condemn as obscene, vulgar or damn right insulting, I for one would be against State interference.
The unfortunate thing is that some companies (Boards of Directors) see the amount they reward their top Directors as akin to a fashion statement and if they do not pay big bucks who would believe them to be serious. Of course it is mostly bunkum, but State regulation would be a dangerous interference.

Hang on. After the financial crash, was it not you that spouted about a lack of regulation causing the problem and that more should have been in place? Oh, that's right, before it went tits up, your opinion was that the govnt should have less regulation and stop interfering.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Methinks that RJDs concept of fairness is somewhat adrift of the majority. Fairness is a concept that can be up for reasonable debate, but within the parameters of morality and ethics might i suggest?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Sep 5 2015, 12:56 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM
I don't need to "think it" I can find people who have proved it

A total of 447 people oen, between them, MORE than the poorest 50% of the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
John that article is so 1996. Sunday 21 July 1996 in fact so why is it relevant now?
How come the article is dated 1996, but it is on the front page of today's Independent?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Oddball2
Sep 5 2015, 01:02 PM
Methinks that RJDs concept of fairness is somewhat adrift of the majority. Fairness is a concept that can be up for reasonable debate, but within the parameters of morality and ethics might i suggest?
I think for some, morality and ethics are not even part of the equation where accumulation of wealth is concerned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Sep 5 2015, 12:54 PM
RJD
Sep 5 2015, 11:54 AM
johnofgwent
Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM
So?
That sums up your attitude to life in a nutshell. !clp!
The "so" is not a statement of attitude it was a question. I think you might understand what the squiggly thing (?) at the end of a sentence means.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball2
Sep 5 2015, 01:02 PM
Methinks that RJDs concept of fairness is somewhat adrift of the majority. Fairness is a concept that can be up for reasonable debate, but within the parameters of morality and ethics might i suggest?
Best prove that you can substantiate what you crystal ball says about my opinions. You to seem to have forgotten what a ? means. Based on JohnofWales statement the question was begging.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Sep 5 2015, 01:08 PM
Oddball2
Sep 5 2015, 01:02 PM
Methinks that RJDs concept of fairness is somewhat adrift of the majority. Fairness is a concept that can be up for reasonable debate, but within the parameters of morality and ethics might i suggest?
I think for some, morality and ethics are not even part of the equation where accumulation of wealth is concerned.
I note the ease by which you form opinions, others require much greater rigour, but there we go. There are thinkers and some who only think they are capable of thinking.

I have posed the question dozens of times and those who cannot think have yet to provide an answer; "if we agree to shift £20b PA from top to bottom etc. etc. etc. Still no answer from the Usuals only the constant whinge, the whine that started before the beginning of the last century. Hence I presume it must just be envy at work.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Sep 4 2015, 08:02 AM
RJD
Sep 4 2015, 07:59 AM
That is not proof. Try and stick to the claim if able.

RJD don't you EVER watch any news and current affairs. (You are always referencing the Torygraph, there has been a lot of detail about it over the past year.)
If I referenced proof you wouldn't read it.
Of corse he wouldn't, to him the Telgraph and the Daily Mail are the gospel. i tend to ignore him most of the time. No point at all trying to reason with him, you only get the same old sound bites and childish insults anyway.
Edited by Lewis, Sep 5 2015, 04:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Sep 5 2015, 01:04 PM
Steve K
Sep 5 2015, 12:56 PM
johnofgwent
Sep 4 2015, 06:43 PM
I don't need to "think it" I can find people who have proved it

A total of 447 people oen, between them, MORE than the poorest 50% of the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-most-unequal-country-in-the-west-1329614.html
John that article is so 1996. Sunday 21 July 1996 in fact so why is it relevant now?
How come the article is dated 1996, but it is on the front page of today's Independent?
I can't answer that because as shown below IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT.



Posted Image

Perhaps you were confused by the media practice of embedding the current days date in the banner of archive articles

John's article was from 1996. As was posted up just recently we are far from being the most unequal in the world.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply