The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RickBFA]

She looked like a rabbit in the headlights towards the end.

Brilliant interview, fair play to Neil.

[TightEnd]

a lot of major uk politicians refuse to be interviewed by Neil. cameron is one, corbyn another

his reasearch is exceptional, no one else like him

fair play to krankie, at least she fronted up and did it on a sticky wicket.

Neil asked her on twitter about a motnh ago and she agreed.

apparently her team weren't happy and got her to do it remotely rather than face to face

[PokerBroker]

apparently her team weren't happy and got her to do it remotely rather than face to face

I thought that is what gave Neil a bigger advantage.  There seemed to be a bit of lag between the answers/questions.   

For me, Sturgeon made the best point in that we shouldn't be facing austerity on the scale we are had we invested in an oil fund back when the 2nd most precious black stuff in the world was found. 

The assertions made by the media and unionist politicians/supporters is that Scotland would continue on the same path that has caused auserity.  Now, I wouldn't trust the SNP to deliver any sort of left wing agenda.  They speak left but very much act centrist.   It was interesting to note that there are many out there now who are supporting the views of John McDonell, about investing now when interest rates are low yet this isn't anything new.   The Nats have argued that position for quite a few years now.   

My personal view is the Independence referendum came far too early for the Nats.  They were outsmarted by Cameron in that respect.   Had they managed to get the referendum in 2016 or 2017, they would have had a far greater chance of winning. 

[DaveShoelace]

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/cameron-unveils-1-2k-top-up-savings-scheme/a891106

Ahead of the chancellor’s 2016 Budget on Wednesday, David Cameron (pictured) announced a new scheme under which workers on universal credit or on working tax credits will be given a bonus of 50% for every £50 per month they save, up to a maximum of £600. The scheme lasts for an initial two year period.

Savers will be able to use the scheme to save another £600 after that initial period, for another two years.

Obviously this is a good thing, but strikes me as a bit of a ploy by the government to make it seem like they are offering more than they are, as people on working tax credits for the most part probably would struggle to put £50 a month away.

[George2Loose]

And when they do save £50 a month they'll be "see you can do it" and take the £50 off them in future budgets

[PokerBroker]

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/cameron-unveils-1-2k-top-up-savings-scheme/a891106

Ahead of the chancellor’s 2016 Budget on Wednesday, David Cameron (pictured) announced a new scheme under which workers on universal credit or on working tax credits will be given a bonus of 50% for every £50 per month they save, up to a maximum of £600. The scheme lasts for an initial two year period.

Savers will be able to use the scheme to save another £600 after that initial period, for another two years.

Obviously this is a good thing, but strikes me as a bit of a ploy by the government to make it seem like they are offering more than they are, as people on working tax credits for the most part probably would struggle to put £50 a month away.

I completely disagree with this being a good thing, Tax Credits for working people in any shape are bad, all they do is allow employers out of paying a decent wage. 

When I hear of these initiatives it makes me want to run head first into a brick wall.   

If as much time, effort and resources were spent on challenging/cosing loopholes that allow multinationals to avoid paying their fair share of tax as there is in browbeating those less fortunate this country would be in a far better state. 

George is right, as soon as those in power realise that families can forego £50 a month they will take it away. 

It is about time these rehashed ideas were shelved for good and replaced with something fit for purpose.   

I wouldn't even me opposed to greater tax cuts for corporations if it meant they paid staff more and created more jobs. 

In addition to that we should have greater control over the self employed, and those trying to fiddle the system through tax returns should be prosecuted severely starting with their accountants. 

My line of work sees me come across many self employed people, unlike myself though, many of these people aren't paying their fair share of tax.   This may be quite a sweeping statement but those who seem to be "at it" more are those who can afford to pay and who wouldn't be so much worse off, at the other side of the scale those who seem to be living within their means and working hard seem far more likely to pay their way. 

[DaveShoelace]

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/cameron-unveils-1-2k-top-up-savings-scheme/a891106

Ahead of the chancellor’s 2016 Budget on Wednesday, David Cameron (pictured) announced a new scheme under which workers on universal credit or on working tax credits will be given a bonus of 50% for every £50 per month they save, up to a maximum of £600. The scheme lasts for an initial two year period.

Savers will be able to use the scheme to save another £600 after that initial period, for another two years.

Obviously this is a good thing, but strikes me as a bit of a ploy by the government to make it seem like they are offering more than they are, as people on working tax credits for the most part probably would struggle to put £50 a month away.

I completely disagree with this being a good thing, Tax Credits for working people in any shape are bad, all they do is allow employers out of paying a decent wage. 

When I hear of these initiatives it makes me want to run head first into a brick wall.   

If as much time, effort and resources were spent on challenging/cosing loopholes that allow multinationals to avoid paying their fair share of tax as there is in browbeating those less fortunate this country would be in a far better state. 

George is right, as soon as those in power realise that families can forego £50 a month they will take it away. 

It is about time these rehashed ideas were shelved for good and replaced with something fit for purpose.   

I wouldn't even me opposed to greater tax cuts for corporations if it meant they paid staff more and created more jobs. 

In addition to that we should have greater control over the self employed, and those trying to fiddle the system through tax returns should be prosecuted severely starting with their accountants. 

My line of work sees me come across many self employed people, unlike myself though, many of these people aren't paying their fair share of tax.   This may be quite a sweeping statement but those who seem to be "at it" more are those who can afford to pay and who wouldn't be so much worse off, at the other side of the scale those who seem to be living within their means and working hard seem far more likely to pay their way. 

I meant the savings thing was a good thing, not tax credits.

[PokerBroker]

No I get that, but this is only available to those on Universal Credits.   Any incentive linked to in work benefits doesn't sit well with me.   

I have, in the past found myself in the unfortunate position of having to claim benefits.  It's not nice.   My bugbear at the time was being asked to fill out a diary of what I had done prior to my signing day to find work.   For me I was doing quite a bit, but it was all past tense.   We should be encouraging people to find work by asking what they will do, what plans they have, give them aspirations etc.   All too often I heard people being told it "didn't really matter what the job paid you will get tax credits"  that is a dereliction of responsibility in my mind.   Filling low paid jobs with people from benefits is likely to cause them to turn their back on that work.   

What we had didn't work, what the Conservatives are proposing is doomed to failure.   We need inspired leadership with radical propositions.  Are Labour capable?  At the moment they aren't.  Probably won't be for a generation.  Politics is in a dire mess.   

[PokerBroker]

Labour socialists . . .

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/tony-and-cherie-blair-control-27m-property-empire/?cmpid=mslatest_2119481&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=ms_latest

[TightEnd]

Labour socialists . . .

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/tony-and-cherie-blair-control-27m-property-empire/?cmpid=mslatest_2119481&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=ms_latest

what's wrong with that?

he's earned a fortune both in politics and afterwards

She's been a highly paid QC for nearly 20 years

both at the top of their professions with multiple clients prepared to pay them market rates for their services for a long time

the least you'd expect is a property portfolio of this size.

the politics of envy isn't very attractive really

[Doobs]

Labour socialists . . .

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/tony-and-cherie-blair-control-27m-property-empire/?cmpid=mslatest_2119481&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=ms_latest

You realise that Cherie Blair has just given a legal opinion and agreed to work as an advocate?  

Once you get that doesn't it become an argument on whether it was ok to be rich and a socialist?  

Where do you stand on Russell Brand, who has some pretty nice real estate and Ken Livingstone who compared another rich socialist to Jimmy Saville.  

[redsimon]

Labour socialists . . .

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/tony-and-cherie-blair-control-27m-property-empire/?cmpid=mslatest_2119481&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=ms_latest

Wonder how much of that is mortgaged to the hilt though.

[ ] has  27m in assets after liabilities

[PokerBroker]

Labour socialists . . .

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/tony-and-cherie-blair-control-27m-property-empire/?cmpid=mslatest_2119481&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=ms_latest

what's wrong with that?

he's earned a fortune both in politics and afterwards

She's been a highly paid QC for nearly 20 years

both at the top of their professions with multiple clients prepared to pay them market rates for their services for a long time

the least you'd expect is a property portfolio of this size.

the politics of envy isn't very attractive really

It has nothing to do with envy, my view is it's anathema to be a Labour politician (former or present) and to have such holdings.  It doesn't comprehend with Labour values.  Kier Hardie would be turning in his grave.   

I have, no issue with people buying and selling property.    It would kill me off if I did have :-)

As to the other comments, Russel Brand is a plonker, bordering on sociopath.  Ken Livingstone, I don't particularly care for him, I don't know his views but comparing anyone to Jimmy Saville is pretty nasty, I'm not sure of the content though. 

[redsimon]

Labour socialists . . .

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/tony-and-cherie-blair-control-27m-property-empire/?cmpid=mslatest_2119481&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=ms_latest

what's wrong with that?

he's earned a fortune both in politics and afterwards

She's been a highly paid QC for nearly 20 years

both at the top of their professions with multiple clients prepared to pay them market rates for their services for a long time

the least you'd expect is a property portfolio of this size.

the politics of envy isn't very attractive really

It has nothing to do with envy, my view is it's anathema to be a Labour politician (former or present) and to have such holdings.  It doesn't comprehend with Labour values.  Kier Hardie would be turning in his grave.   

I have, no issue with people buying and selling property.    It would kill me off if I did have :-)

As to the other comments, Russel Brand is a plonker, bordering on sociopath.  Ken Livingstone, I don't particularly care for him, I don't know his views but comparing anyone to Jimmy Saville is pretty nasty, I'm not sure of the content though. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35783651

[TightEnd]

Ken Livingstone is a complete hypocrite

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-livingstone-paid-8000-by-hedge-fund-to-entertain-their-clients-a6928116.html


i dont understand the view that labour politicians can't have personal wealth/property portfolios etc, there are labour millionaires throughout business and the arts and no doubt they all behave altruistically in their private lives, its just bonkers to suggest that a property portfolio is at odds with any sensible use of capital