info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
It will cost a lot
69 views
Skip to first unread message
Yellow
May 30, 2017, 7:20:38 AM5/30/17
to
Corbyn was channelling Abbott this morning on Woman's Hour. :-)
Emma Barnett: Let me understand then: how much would it cost to provide
un-means tested childcare for 1.3 million children.
Jeremy Corbyn: It would cost?um, it would obviously cost a lot to do so,
we accept that.
Barnett: I presume you have the figures?
Corbyn: Yes, I do. It does cost a lot to do. The point I?m trying to
make is that we?re making it universal so that we are in a position to
make sure that every child gets it. And those that can, um, at the
moment can get free places will continue to get them and those that have
to pay won?t, and we will collect the money through taxation, mainly
through corporate taxation.
Barnett: So how much will it cost?
Corbyn: I?ll give you the figure in a moment.
Barnett: You don?t know it?
Corbyn: Um?
Barnett: You?re logging into your iPad here. You?ve announced a major
policy and you don?t know how much it will cost.
Corbyn: Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please.
Barnett: Is this not exactly the issue with people and the Labour party
which came up under Gordon Brown that we can?t trust you with our money?
Corbyn: Not at all. Barnett: But you don?t know the figure.
Corbyn: All of our manifesto is fully costed and examined.
Barnett: You?re holding your manifesto, you?re flicking through it,
you?ve got an iPad there, you?ve had a phone call while we?re in here
and you don?t know how much it?s going to cost?
Corbyn: Can we come back to that in a moment?
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-unable-
provide-cost-flagship-labour-childcare-policy-transcript/
or shorter
http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
Emma Barnett: Let me understand then: how much would it cost to provide
un-means tested childcare for 1.3 million children.
Jeremy Corbyn: It would cost?um, it would obviously cost a lot to do so,
we accept that.
Barnett: I presume you have the figures?
Corbyn: Yes, I do. It does cost a lot to do. The point I?m trying to
make is that we?re making it universal so that we are in a position to
make sure that every child gets it. And those that can, um, at the
moment can get free places will continue to get them and those that have
to pay won?t, and we will collect the money through taxation, mainly
through corporate taxation.
Barnett: So how much will it cost?
Corbyn: I?ll give you the figure in a moment.
Barnett: You don?t know it?
Corbyn: Um?
Barnett: You?re logging into your iPad here. You?ve announced a major
policy and you don?t know how much it will cost.
Corbyn: Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please.
Barnett: Is this not exactly the issue with people and the Labour party
which came up under Gordon Brown that we can?t trust you with our money?
Corbyn: Not at all. Barnett: But you don?t know the figure.
Corbyn: All of our manifesto is fully costed and examined.
Barnett: You?re holding your manifesto, you?re flicking through it,
you?ve got an iPad there, you?ve had a phone call while we?re in here
and you don?t know how much it?s going to cost?
Corbyn: Can we come back to that in a moment?
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-unable-
provide-cost-flagship-labour-childcare-policy-transcript/
or shorter
http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
The Todal
May 30, 2017, 8:45:48 AM5/30/17
to
The dunce here is the interviewer who expects a politician to have the
precise figures for every single figure at his fingertips, memorised in
case he has to sit an exam.
Sounds like Barnett is trying to get a bit of fame and notoriety by
imitating Nick Ferrari.
jamessau...@gmail.com
May 30, 2017, 9:01:48 AM5/30/17
to
It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
Nick
May 30, 2017, 9:25:48 AM5/30/17
to
On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> Corbyn was channelling Abbott this morning on Woman's Hour. :-)
>
TV presenters seem to have got into the habit of judging politicians by
>
the same criteria that they themselves are judged.
Can Me Corbyn read an auto-cue whilst looking serious, the public have a
right to know!
jamessau...@gmail.com
May 30, 2017, 9:26:33 AM5/30/17
to
I heard the interview, he had access to an iPad and he took a phone call. Perhaps from Diane
Nick
May 30, 2017, 9:27:47 AM5/30/17
to
Mike Swift
May 30, 2017, 9:33:02 AM5/30/17
to
In article <3f79e983-dfef-4593...@googlegroups.com>,
jamessau...@gmail.com writes
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
jamessau...@gmail.com writes
>It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
pullgees
May 30, 2017, 10:07:32 AM5/30/17
to
Altroy1
May 30, 2017, 11:07:56 AM5/30/17
to
Yellow wrote:
> Corbyn was channelling Abbott this morning on Woman's Hour. :-)
>
>
>
> Emma Barnett: Let me understand then: how much would it cost...
> Corbyn was channelling Abbott this morning on Woman's Hour. :-)
>
>
>
...to regime change bomb Syria? Answer: much more than any childcare
facilities.
R. Mark Clayton
May 30, 2017, 12:30:46 PM5/30/17
to
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:45:48 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
SNIP
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
> >
>
> Trivially unimportant.
Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M [pa] although over four years the increase would have cost £1Billion.
It is not trivial when Corbyn does not know the cost of a scheme he is specifically there to promote and anyway why should those without kids 'just getting by' pay for the childcare of rich people who do?
>
> The dunce here is the interviewer who expects a politician to have the
> precise figures for every single figure at his fingertips, memorised in
> case he has to sit an exam.
>
> Sounds like Barnett is trying to get a bit of fame and notoriety by
> imitating Nick Ferrari.
The Todal
May 30, 2017, 2:53:35 PM5/30/17
to
On 30/05/2017 17:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:45:48 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> SNIP
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
>>>
>>
>> Trivially unimportant.
>
> Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M [pa] although over four years the increase would have cost £1Billion.
>
> It is not trivial when Corbyn does not know the cost of a scheme he is specifically there to promote and anyway why should those without kids 'just getting by' pay for the childcare of rich people who do?
>
Trivially unimportant. For years our journalists have had nothing very
> On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:45:48 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> SNIP
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
>>>
>>
>> Trivially unimportant.
>
> Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M [pa] although over four years the increase would have cost £1Billion.
>
> It is not trivial when Corbyn does not know the cost of a scheme he is specifically there to promote and anyway why should those without kids 'just getting by' pay for the childcare of rich people who do?
>
useful to say to politicians at election time, but now, like performing
monkeys, they have all learned to ask "how much will this manifesto
pledge cost?" and taunt the politician if he doesn't have a ready answer.
Whether the cost is five million, five billion or twenty five billion,
the journalist hasn't a clue whether that's too little, too much or just
right, and the public don't have a clue either. How much will our
nuclear deterrent cost us over the next thirty years? Oh, don't you have
the figures? That proves that we shouldn't have a nuclear deterrent,
does it?
Yellow
May 30, 2017, 3:54:03 PM5/30/17
to
In article <ep57rp...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
says...
figures when they announce a flagship policy, is unimportant?
Clearly you have very low standards for the people you hero worship.
>
> The dunce here is the interviewer who expects a politician to have the
> precise figures for every single figure at his fingertips, memorised in
> case he has to sit an exam.
It was one announcement of one policy. If he could not see the "how much
will it cost" question coming then how is he going to deal with Brexit
negotiations?
> Sounds like Barnett is trying to get a bit of fame and notoriety by
> imitating Nick Ferrari.
I suggest you listen to the interview, which was calm and measured. No
trick questions, just an unprepared interviewee.
says...
>
> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> > https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-unable-
> > provide-cost-flagship-labour-childcare-policy-transcript/
> >
> > or shorter
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
> >
>
> Trivially unimportant.
The leader of their party, during an election campaign, not knowing the
> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> > https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-unable-
> > provide-cost-flagship-labour-childcare-policy-transcript/
> >
> > or shorter
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
> >
>
> Trivially unimportant.
figures when they announce a flagship policy, is unimportant?
Clearly you have very low standards for the people you hero worship.
>
> The dunce here is the interviewer who expects a politician to have the
> precise figures for every single figure at his fingertips, memorised in
> case he has to sit an exam.
will it cost" question coming then how is he going to deal with Brexit
negotiations?
> Sounds like Barnett is trying to get a bit of fame and notoriety by
> imitating Nick Ferrari.
trick questions, just an unprepared interviewee.
Yellow
May 30, 2017, 4:50:54 PM5/30/17
to
In article <ep5tdd...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
says...
> For years our journalists have had nothing very
> useful to say to politicians at election time, but now, like performing
> monkeys, they have all learned to ask "how much will this manifesto
> pledge cost?" and taunt the politician if he doesn't have a ready answer.
So you have figured that but Corbyn and Abbott? Hmmmm.... rustle
rustle.... hmmmm..... tap tap tap..... hmmmmm...... can I get back to
you?
>
> Whether the cost is five million, five billion or twenty five billion,
> the journalist hasn't a clue whether that's too little, too much or just
> right, and the public don't have a clue either.
The point is -> neither did Corbyn.
> How much will our
> nuclear deterrent cost us over the next thirty years? Oh, don't you have
> the figures? That proves that we shouldn't have a nuclear deterrent,
> does it?
If Corbyn was on a radio show called Nuclear Watch, to announce a policy
on Trident, than your average bear is going to expect him to know the
answer to "and how much is that going to cost".
Go on Woman's Hour to announce a policy on free child care for all
and.......
says...
>
> On 30/05/2017 17:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:45:48 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> >> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> > SNIP
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
> >>>
> >>
> >> Trivially unimportant.
> >
> > Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M [pa] although over four years the increase would have cost £1Billion.
> >
> > It is not trivial when Corbyn does not know the cost of a scheme he is specifically there to promote and anyway why should those without kids 'just getting by' pay for the childcare of rich people who do?
> >
>
> Trivially unimportant.
That would seem to be a minority opinion.
> On 30/05/2017 17:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:45:48 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> >> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> > SNIP
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
> >>>
> >>
> >> Trivially unimportant.
> >
> > Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M [pa] although over four years the increase would have cost £1Billion.
> >
> > It is not trivial when Corbyn does not know the cost of a scheme he is specifically there to promote and anyway why should those without kids 'just getting by' pay for the childcare of rich people who do?
> >
>
> Trivially unimportant.
> For years our journalists have had nothing very
> useful to say to politicians at election time, but now, like performing
> monkeys, they have all learned to ask "how much will this manifesto
> pledge cost?" and taunt the politician if he doesn't have a ready answer.
rustle.... hmmmm..... tap tap tap..... hmmmmm...... can I get back to
you?
>
> Whether the cost is five million, five billion or twenty five billion,
> the journalist hasn't a clue whether that's too little, too much or just
> right, and the public don't have a clue either.
> How much will our
> nuclear deterrent cost us over the next thirty years? Oh, don't you have
> the figures? That proves that we shouldn't have a nuclear deterrent,
> does it?
on Trident, than your average bear is going to expect him to know the
answer to "and how much is that going to cost".
Go on Woman's Hour to announce a policy on free child care for all
and.......
The Todal
May 30, 2017, 5:26:29 PM5/30/17
to
has lost no votes at all by forgetting a specific figure that was set
out in his manifesto calculation and which lazy BBC cow should have read
for herself.
Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a crap
campaign.
Phi
May 30, 2017, 5:29:27 PM5/30/17
to
"Yellow" <no...@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.3397de373...@News.Individual.NET...
1300000 children x 30 hours at £20 p/h x 48 weeks
Yellow
May 30, 2017, 7:44:38 PM5/30/17
to
In article <ep66c3...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
Ah, so this was a tactic, to get more votes. I see......
> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a crap
> campaign.
She is running a crap campaign but you needed George Osbourne to tell
you this? LOL!
> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a crap
> campaign.
you this? LOL!
Norman Wells
May 31, 2017, 3:51:31 AM5/31/17
to
On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a crap
> campaign.
She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a crap
> campaign.
tim...
May 31, 2017, 4:24:40 AM5/31/17
to
"Mike Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yxFAjJAB...@ntlworld.com...
> In article <3f79e983-dfef-4593...@googlegroups.com>,
> jamessau...@gmail.com writes
>>It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
>
> He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
there's live video of the broadcast
> jamessau...@gmail.com writes
>>It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
>
> He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
he actually did have a scribble pad full of notes to refer to
tim
tim...
May 31, 2017, 4:29:47 AM5/31/17
to
"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ad14833-307a-4ffd...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:45:48 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> SNIP
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
>> >
>>
>> Trivially unimportant.
>
> Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M
> [pa]
I would have forgiven her if that was the mistake that she made, but it
>> On 30/05/2017 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> SNIP
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
>> >
>>
>> Trivially unimportant.
>
> Well Diane Abbot made a mistake she said £300k when she meant to say £300M
> [pa]
clearly wasn't
After saying 300,000 she didn't immediate say "Oops sorry I meant million",
she waffled and waffled and waffled and then came up with a completely
different stupidly wrong number.
The fact that 300 million would have been a reasonably correct alternative
appears to be just chance, not the figure that Diane misremembered.
tim
tim...
May 31, 2017, 4:32:24 AM5/31/17
to
"The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ep66c3...@mid.individual.net...
the whole point of the question is to get the politician to show their
understanding of the issue, not to tell the listener the factual answer
tim
tim...
May 31, 2017, 4:34:12 AM5/31/17
to
"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:ep7b00...@mid.individual.net...
negotiating Brexit (obviously not him personally)
and if that is the case he and the country will get royally shafted
tim
tim...
May 31, 2017, 4:36:33 AM5/31/17
to
"Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:ogko15$v95$1...@dont-email.me...
the official answer appears to be based on 2 pound per hour (on the
assumption that the other numbers can't change)
tim
kat
May 31, 2017, 6:13:25 AM5/31/17
to
school holidays at present. But if that is to be increased to the
full year, it should be 52 weeks, as you still pay if you take your
child out for a holiday.
--
kat
>^..^<
The Todal
May 31, 2017, 8:29:37 AM5/31/17
to
accompanying the manifesto.
So Corbyn was expected on the spur of the moment to find a specific
figure which the interviewer had not bothered to find for herself.
Here you go - see if you can find the information within 10 seconds.
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/FUNDING-BRITAINS-FUTURE.PDF
The Todal
May 31, 2017, 8:34:09 AM5/31/17
to
the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
negotiation. But you have to remember that her main job was at the Home
Office, cutting the funding for the police. She knows fuck all about the
economy, taxes or food banks. Any calculations will be for someone else
to sort out, some time in the future. Mrs Strong-and-Stable just has to
sit on her arse and be a Bloody Difficult Woman.
tim...
May 31, 2017, 8:52:30 AM5/31/17
to
news:ep7r9f...@mid.individual.net...
Easy peezy
"4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3 (£bn)"
tim
>
"4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3 (£bn)"
tim
>
tim...
May 31, 2017, 8:56:54 AM5/31/17
to
news:ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net...
How could anyone expect otherwise?
>She was asked what sort of cap there would be on the dementia tax. She
>waffled and refused to answer.
I agree, she has dug herself an unnecessary hole here
she would be much better for filling it
tim
> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>> crap campaign.
>>
>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>
>
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave the
> EU. She waffled and refused to answer.
well of course she did.
>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>> crap campaign.
>>
>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>
>
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave the
> EU. She waffled and refused to answer.
How could anyone expect otherwise?
>She was asked what sort of cap there would be on the dementia tax. She
>waffled and refused to answer.
she would be much better for filling it
tim
The Todal
May 31, 2017, 9:12:28 AM5/31/17
to
his iPad but probably got flustered because of the pressure of time.
Ophelia
May 31, 2017, 9:45:28 AM5/31/17
to
"tim..." wrote in message news:ogmec3$rra$1...@dont-email.me...
==
Aye negotiators lay out all their baselines first off, eh ...
Bloody daft!!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Aye negotiators lay out all their baselines first off, eh ...
Bloody daft!!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Norman Wells
May 31, 2017, 9:53:08 AM5/31/17
to
On 31/05/2017 13:34, The Todal wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>> crap campaign.
>>
>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer.
Of course she did. It's all to be negotiated. Only a fool expects an
> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>> crap campaign.
>>
>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer.
answer to such a question.
> She was asked what sort of
> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
> negotiation.
> But you have to remember that her main job was at the Home
> Office, cutting the funding for the police. She knows fuck all about the
> economy, taxes or food banks.
> Any calculations will be for someone else
> to sort out, some time in the future. Mrs Strong-and-Stable just has to
> sit on her arse and be a Bloody Difficult Woman.
Vidcapper
May 31, 2017, 10:27:07 AM5/31/17
to
On 31/05/2017 13:51, tim... wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3 (£bn)"
>
But calculating how much something would cost, is a long way from
>
actually saying how you will raise the necessary money!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
James Harris
May 31, 2017, 10:31:38 AM5/31/17
to
On 31/05/2017 13:34, The Todal wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>> crap campaign.
>>
>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>
>
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer.
The correct answer would have been: I am not going to tell you.
>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>> crap campaign.
>>
>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>
>
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer.
--
James Harris
zero government
May 31, 2017, 10:55:27 AM5/31/17
to
posters "bloody difficult woman" - and she has been using it, describing
herself "they will find out ... " "that I am a bloody difficult woman"
they expected it to be some sort of meme. some sort of appealing
description
this corpse
tim...
May 31, 2017, 12:56:21 PM5/31/17
to
news:ep7tpq...@mid.individual.net...
It was no easier to find on my computer that it would have been on the paper
document
all I did was scanned down one page at a time, until I found it.
Though obviously I couldn't have cut and pasted from a paper document.
> He tried to do it on his iPad but probably got flustered because of the
> pressure of time.
he also had a paper copy of the manifesto sitting beside him
tim
>
document
all I did was scanned down one page at a time, until I found it.
Though obviously I couldn't have cut and pasted from a paper document.
> He tried to do it on his iPad but probably got flustered because of the
> pressure of time.
tim
>
tim...
May 31, 2017, 1:06:29 PM5/31/17
to
"Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZoAXA.286115$C56....@fx34.am4...
> On 31/05/2017 13:51, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3
>> (£bn)"
>>
>
> But calculating how much something would cost, is a long way from actually
> saying how you will raise the necessary money!
did you read the document :-)
>>
>>
>> "4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3
>> (£bn)"
>>
>
> But calculating how much something would cost, is a long way from actually
> saying how you will raise the necessary money!
TBH some of the things on the list seem to have been completely overlooked
during journalistic analysis (who knew they were scrapping the married
persons’ tax allowance?)
And some of them are pie in the sky (Labour’s Tax Avoidance programme
(sic) - Yeah right, managed the booked savings the previous 33 times it was
tried, didn't it - not!)
Corporation tax (see below) 19.4
Income tax increases for Top 5 per cent (see below) 6.4
Excessive Pay Levy 1.3
Offshore Company Property Levy 1.6
Labour’s Tax Avoidance programme 6.5
Extension of Stamp Duty Reserve Tax to derivatives and removal of exemption
5.6
Efficiency review of corporate tax reliefs 3.8
Reversing tax giveaways on Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, bank levy and
scrapping the married persons’ tax allowance 3.7
VAT on private school fees 1.6
Other: savings on Discretionary Housing Payments from scrapping bedroom tax,
Soft Drinks Industry Levy spend redirected from capital to revenue, higher
rate IPT on medical insurance, reform Controlled Foreign Companies
corporation tax regime 2.6
Allowance made for additional behavioural change and uncertainty, reducing
total tax take -3.9
TOTAL 48.6
tim...
May 31, 2017, 1:07:12 PM5/31/17
to
"James Harris" <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogmjtn$f9f$3...@dont-email.me...
tim
Brian Reay
May 31, 2017, 1:10:12 PM5/31/17
to
On 30/05/17 12:20, Yellow wrote:
> Corbyn was channelling Abbott this morning on Woman's Hour. :-)
>
>
>
> Emma Barnett: Let me understand then: how much would it cost to provide
> un-means tested childcare for 1.3 million children.
>
> Jeremy Corbyn: It would cost?um, it would obviously cost a lot to do so,
> we accept that.
>
> Barnett: I presume you have the figures?
>
> Corbyn: Yes, I do. It does cost a lot to do. The point I?m trying to
> make is that we?re making it universal so that we are in a position to
> make sure that every child gets it. And those that can, um, at the
> moment can get free places will continue to get them and those that have
> to pay won?t, and we will collect the money through taxation, mainly
> through corporate taxation.
>
> Barnett: So how much will it cost?
>
> Corbyn: I?ll give you the figure in a moment.
>
> Barnett: You don?t know it?
>
> Corbyn: Um?
>
> Barnett: You?re logging into your iPad here. You?ve announced a major
> policy and you don?t know how much it will cost.
>
> Corbyn: Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please.
>
> Barnett: Is this not exactly the issue with people and the Labour party
> which came up under Gordon Brown that we can?t trust you with our money?
> Corbyn: Not at all. Barnett: But you don?t know the figure.
>
> Corbyn: All of our manifesto is fully costed and examined.
>
> Barnett: You?re holding your manifesto, you?re flicking through it,
> you?ve got an iPad there, you?ve had a phone call while we?re in here
> and you don?t know how much it?s going to cost?
>
> Corbyn: Can we come back to that in a moment?
all of his 'team' (including himself) were fully briefed of the costs
etc of all their plans. His failure to take even this basic precaution
shows he lacks even the basic skills required to organise a party in a
brewery, let alone run a country.
The idea he could conduct any kind of negotiation with world leaders
when he is flummoxed by a BBC presenter is beyond belief, yet people
will still vote for him!
The sad thing is, May isn't much better- her history isn't exactly
stunning when it comes to successful outcomes.
> Corbyn was channelling Abbott this morning on Woman's Hour. :-)
>
>
>
> Emma Barnett: Let me understand then: how much would it cost to provide
> un-means tested childcare for 1.3 million children.
>
> Jeremy Corbyn: It would cost?um, it would obviously cost a lot to do so,
> we accept that.
>
> Barnett: I presume you have the figures?
>
> Corbyn: Yes, I do. It does cost a lot to do. The point I?m trying to
> make is that we?re making it universal so that we are in a position to
> make sure that every child gets it. And those that can, um, at the
> moment can get free places will continue to get them and those that have
> to pay won?t, and we will collect the money through taxation, mainly
> through corporate taxation.
>
> Barnett: So how much will it cost?
>
> Corbyn: I?ll give you the figure in a moment.
>
> Barnett: You don?t know it?
>
> Corbyn: Um?
>
> Barnett: You?re logging into your iPad here. You?ve announced a major
> policy and you don?t know how much it will cost.
>
> Corbyn: Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please.
>
> Barnett: Is this not exactly the issue with people and the Labour party
> which came up under Gordon Brown that we can?t trust you with our money?
> Corbyn: Not at all. Barnett: But you don?t know the figure.
>
> Corbyn: All of our manifesto is fully costed and examined.
>
> Barnett: You?re holding your manifesto, you?re flicking through it,
> you?ve got an iPad there, you?ve had a phone call while we?re in here
> and you don?t know how much it?s going to cost?
>
> Corbyn: Can we come back to that in a moment?
>
>
>
>
> https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-unable-
> provide-cost-flagship-labour-childcare-policy-transcript/
>
> or shorter
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
>
You would think that, after the Abbot fiasco, Corbyn would have ensured
>
>
>
> https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-unable-
> provide-cost-flagship-labour-childcare-policy-transcript/
>
> or shorter
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y75j355j
>
all of his 'team' (including himself) were fully briefed of the costs
etc of all their plans. His failure to take even this basic precaution
shows he lacks even the basic skills required to organise a party in a
brewery, let alone run a country.
The idea he could conduct any kind of negotiation with world leaders
when he is flummoxed by a BBC presenter is beyond belief, yet people
will still vote for him!
The sad thing is, May isn't much better- her history isn't exactly
stunning when it comes to successful outcomes.
Ophelia
May 31, 2017, 2:54:59 PM5/31/17
to
"Norman Wells" wrote in message news:ep8061...@mid.individual.net...
==
+1
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
+1
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
The Todal
May 31, 2017, 5:32:42 PM5/31/17
to
representatives. All negotiations will be conducted by diplomats and
civil servants.
Just as well, really, because neither Theresa May nor David Davis have a
clue what to ask for or what to settle for. And to be fair, neither does
Corbyn.
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 6:33:45 AM6/1/17
to
In article <ep7r9f...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
says...
been suffering all sorts of abuse on twitter, some of an anti-Semitic
nature?
You have to love those Corbyn supporters - he fucks up and it is the
fault of the interviewer.
says...
>
> On 31/05/2017 09:23, tim... wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Mike Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:yxFAjJAB...@ntlworld.com...
> >> In article <3f79e983-dfef-4593...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> jamessau...@gmail.com writes
> >>> It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
> >>
> >> He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
> >
> > there's live video of the broadcast
> >
> > he actually did have a scribble pad full of notes to refer to
> >
>
> And the information was readily available in the Labour calculations
> accompanying the manifesto.
>
> So Corbyn was expected on the spur of the moment to find a specific
> figure which the interviewer had not bothered to find for herself.
Did you see that the interviewer, who I believe you called a cow, has
> On 31/05/2017 09:23, tim... wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Mike Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:yxFAjJAB...@ntlworld.com...
> >> In article <3f79e983-dfef-4593...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> jamessau...@gmail.com writes
> >>> It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
> >>
> >> He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
> >
> > there's live video of the broadcast
> >
> > he actually did have a scribble pad full of notes to refer to
> >
>
> And the information was readily available in the Labour calculations
> accompanying the manifesto.
>
> So Corbyn was expected on the spur of the moment to find a specific
> figure which the interviewer had not bothered to find for herself.
been suffering all sorts of abuse on twitter, some of an anti-Semitic
nature?
You have to love those Corbyn supporters - he fucks up and it is the
fault of the interviewer.
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 6:42:25 AM6/1/17
to
In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
says...
and pay whatever the EU ask and May, not being prepared to commit to the
same thing, is confusing you.
> But you have to remember that her main job was at the Home
> Office, cutting the funding for the police. She knows fuck all about the
> economy, taxes or food banks. Any calculations will be for someone else
> to sort out, some time in the future. Mrs Strong-and-Stable just has to
> sit on her arse and be a Bloody Difficult Woman.
But to be fair, she has not gone on the radio to announce policy and
then made a tit of herself.
says...
>
> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
> > On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
> >
> >> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
> >> crap campaign.
> >
> > She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
> >
>
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
>
> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
> negotiation.
I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
> > On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
> >
> >> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
> >> crap campaign.
> >
> > She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
> >
>
>
> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
>
> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
> negotiation.
and pay whatever the EU ask and May, not being prepared to commit to the
same thing, is confusing you.
> But you have to remember that her main job was at the Home
> Office, cutting the funding for the police. She knows fuck all about the
> economy, taxes or food banks. Any calculations will be for someone else
> to sort out, some time in the future. Mrs Strong-and-Stable just has to
> sit on her arse and be a Bloody Difficult Woman.
then made a tit of herself.
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 7:12:37 AM6/1/17
to
In article <ogmt02$hsf$1...@dont-email.me>, tims_n...@yahoo.com says...
I did! Something I am actually in favour of as this only paid now
because of religion.
One of the few ticks in the box for Corbyn is that he is an atheist.
>
> And some of them are pie in the sky (Labour?s Tax Avoidance programme
can just get the tax avoiders to cough up, is a tick is the "you fucking
morons" box.
>
> Corporation tax (see below) 19.4
> Income tax increases for Top 5 per cent (see below) 6.4
> Excessive Pay Levy 1.3
There is also the one about government contracts not being given to any
company that has more than a 20 fold pay differential. The idea,
obviously, is to get companies to bump up the lowest wages and as with a
lot of Labour stuff, nice sentiment.
But if a corporation pays its boss £1,000,000 a year, it would have to
start paying its unskilled staff £50,000 a year. Or a company that pays
the living wage (£8.45), would need to reduce the boss's pay to £329,550
based on the lowest paid working a 37.5 hour week.
It is simply not going to happen. The companies will either "get round
it" or walk away from government work - more likely the former.
> Offshore Company Property Levy 1.6
> Labour?s Tax Avoidance programme 6.5
savings. If this is so, I am surprised the press have not delved further
into this one.
> 5.6
> Efficiency review of corporate tax reliefs 3.8
> Reversing tax giveaways on Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, bank levy and
> scrapping the married persons? tax allowance 3.7
I assume the inheritance tax one is to reverse the exemption of some of
the value of a house if it is left to the kids? I have been trying to
find out but have been unable to find the specifics.
So if that is so, I am amazed there has not been the same "outcry" about
this as there were for the Tories social care policy as it will affect
the same people. But nothing.
>
> "Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZoAXA.286115$C56....@fx34.am4...
> > On 31/05/2017 13:51, tim... wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3
> >> (£bn)"
> >>
> >
> > But calculating how much something would cost, is a long way from actually
> > saying how you will raise the necessary money!
>
> did you read the document :-)
>
> TBH some of the things on the list seem to have been completely overlooked
> during journalistic analysis (who knew they were scrapping the married
> persons? tax allowance?)
> "Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZoAXA.286115$C56....@fx34.am4...
> > On 31/05/2017 13:51, tim... wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "4 Childcare and early years including more money for Sure Start 5.3
> >> (£bn)"
> >>
> >
> > But calculating how much something would cost, is a long way from actually
> > saying how you will raise the necessary money!
>
> did you read the document :-)
>
> TBH some of the things on the list seem to have been completely overlooked
> during journalistic analysis (who knew they were scrapping the married
I did! Something I am actually in favour of as this only paid now
because of religion.
One of the few ticks in the box for Corbyn is that he is an atheist.
>
> And some of them are pie in the sky (Labour?s Tax Avoidance programme
> (sic) - Yeah right, managed the booked savings the previous 33 times it was
> tried, didn't it - not!)
Costings based on the idea that there is a pot of gold out there if we
> tried, didn't it - not!)
can just get the tax avoiders to cough up, is a tick is the "you fucking
morons" box.
>
> Corporation tax (see below) 19.4
> Income tax increases for Top 5 per cent (see below) 6.4
> Excessive Pay Levy 1.3
company that has more than a 20 fold pay differential. The idea,
obviously, is to get companies to bump up the lowest wages and as with a
lot of Labour stuff, nice sentiment.
But if a corporation pays its boss £1,000,000 a year, it would have to
start paying its unskilled staff £50,000 a year. Or a company that pays
the living wage (£8.45), would need to reduce the boss's pay to £329,550
based on the lowest paid working a 37.5 hour week.
It is simply not going to happen. The companies will either "get round
it" or walk away from government work - more likely the former.
> Offshore Company Property Levy 1.6
> Extension of Stamp Duty Reserve Tax to derivatives and removal of exemption
Is this the so called "robin hood tax"? Which I would affect pension
savings. If this is so, I am surprised the press have not delved further
into this one.
> 5.6
> Efficiency review of corporate tax reliefs 3.8
> Reversing tax giveaways on Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, bank levy and
I assume the inheritance tax one is to reverse the exemption of some of
the value of a house if it is left to the kids? I have been trying to
find out but have been unable to find the specifics.
So if that is so, I am amazed there has not been the same "outcry" about
this as there were for the Tories social care policy as it will affect
the same people. But nothing.
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 7:14:47 AM6/1/17
to
In article <ogmt71$imq$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com says...
You have put your finger on it.
> His failure to take even this basic precaution
> shows he lacks even the basic skills required to organise a party in a
> brewery, let alone run a country.
>
> The idea he could conduct any kind of negotiation with world leaders
> when he is flummoxed by a BBC presenter is beyond belief, yet people
> will still vote for him!
>
> The sad thing is, May isn't much better- her history isn't exactly
> stunning when it comes to successful outcomes.
As they say - governments lose elections, oppositions do not win them.
> His failure to take even this basic precaution
> shows he lacks even the basic skills required to organise a party in a
> brewery, let alone run a country.
>
> The idea he could conduct any kind of negotiation with world leaders
> when he is flummoxed by a BBC presenter is beyond belief, yet people
> will still vote for him!
>
> The sad thing is, May isn't much better- her history isn't exactly
> stunning when it comes to successful outcomes.
The Todal
Jun 1, 2017, 5:01:00 PM6/1/17
to
On 01/06/2017 11:42, Yellow wrote:
> In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
> says...
>>
>> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>>> crap campaign.
>>>
>>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>>
>>
>>
>> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
>> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
>> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
>>
>> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
>> negotiation.
>
> I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
> and pay whatever the EU ask
He never said any such thing. Either you are deliberately misleading us
> In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
> says...
>>
>> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>>> crap campaign.
>>>
>>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>>
>>
>>
>> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
>> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
>> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
>>
>> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
>> negotiation.
>
> I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
> and pay whatever the EU ask
or you have carelessly misunderstood something that he said.
> and May, not being prepared to commit to the
> same thing, is confusing you.
diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>
>
>> But you have to remember that her main job was at the Home
>> Office, cutting the funding for the police. She knows fuck all about the
>> economy, taxes or food banks. Any calculations will be for someone else
>> to sort out, some time in the future. Mrs Strong-and-Stable just has to
>> sit on her arse and be a Bloody Difficult Woman.
>
> But to be fair, she has not gone on the radio to announce policy and
> then made a tit of herself.
>
The Todal
Jun 1, 2017, 5:18:13 PM6/1/17
to
On 01/06/2017 11:33, Yellow wrote:
> In article <ep7r9f...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
> says...
>>
>> On 31/05/2017 09:23, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mike Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:yxFAjJAB...@ntlworld.com...
>>>> In article <3f79e983-dfef-4593...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> jamessau...@gmail.com writes
>>>>> It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
>>>>
>>>> He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
>>>
>>> there's live video of the broadcast
>>>
>>> he actually did have a scribble pad full of notes to refer to
>>>
>>
>> And the information was readily available in the Labour calculations
>> accompanying the manifesto.
>>
>> So Corbyn was expected on the spur of the moment to find a specific
>> figure which the interviewer had not bothered to find for herself.
>
> Did you see that the interviewer, who I believe you called a cow, has
> been suffering all sorts of abuse on twitter, some of an anti-Semitic
> nature?
From two or three moronic trolls, presumably. Still, it's an excellent
> In article <ep7r9f...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
> says...
>>
>> On 31/05/2017 09:23, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mike Swift" <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:yxFAjJAB...@ntlworld.com...
>>>> In article <3f79e983-dfef-4593...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> jamessau...@gmail.com writes
>>>>> It's not an exam they are allowed to bring notes.
>>>>
>>>> He threw away the fag packet by mistake.
>>>
>>> there's live video of the broadcast
>>>
>>> he actually did have a scribble pad full of notes to refer to
>>>
>>
>> And the information was readily available in the Labour calculations
>> accompanying the manifesto.
>>
>> So Corbyn was expected on the spur of the moment to find a specific
>> figure which the interviewer had not bothered to find for herself.
>
> Did you see that the interviewer, who I believe you called a cow, has
> been suffering all sorts of abuse on twitter, some of an anti-Semitic
> nature?
excuse to claim that the Labour Party is infected with antisemitism.
>
> You have to love those Corbyn supporters - he fucks up and it is the
> fault of the interviewer.
An interviewer who demands that her interviewee finds information from a
public document that she could as easily find for herself, is a rude
bitch. Obviously Corbyn was too polite to say so. A politician is
expected to accept his role as punch-bag to entertain the avid listeners
and viewers.
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 7:30:44 PM6/1/17
to
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 7:32:37 PM6/1/17
to
In article <epbekj...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
says...
> An interviewer who demands that her interviewee finds information from a
> public document that she could as easily find for herself, is a rude
> bitch. Obviously Corbyn was too polite to say so. A politician is
> expected to accept his role as punch-bag to entertain the avid listeners
> and viewers.
You can repeat that line as many times as you like but no one is buying
it.
says...
>
> On 01/06/2017 11:33, Yellow wrote:
> > You have to love those Corbyn supporters - he fucks up and it is the
> > fault of the interviewer.
>
>
> I'm very glad that you love me. Shall we get a room?
Are you paying?
> On 01/06/2017 11:33, Yellow wrote:
> > You have to love those Corbyn supporters - he fucks up and it is the
> > fault of the interviewer.
>
>
> I'm very glad that you love me. Shall we get a room?
> An interviewer who demands that her interviewee finds information from a
> public document that she could as easily find for herself, is a rude
> bitch. Obviously Corbyn was too polite to say so. A politician is
> expected to accept his role as punch-bag to entertain the avid listeners
> and viewers.
it.
Yellow
Jun 1, 2017, 7:35:38 PM6/1/17
to
> On 01/06/2017 11:42, Yellow wrote:
> > In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
> >>>> crap campaign.
> >>>
> >>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> >> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
> >> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
> >>
> >> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
> >> negotiation.
> >
> > I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
> > and pay whatever the EU ask
>
> He never said any such thing. Either you are deliberately misleading us
> or you have carelessly misunderstood something that he said.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3566116/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-would-
> > In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
> >>>> crap campaign.
> >>>
> >>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
> >> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
> >> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to answer.
> >>
> >> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
> >> negotiation.
> >
> > I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
> > and pay whatever the EU ask
>
> He never said any such thing. Either you are deliberately misleading us
> or you have carelessly misunderstood something that he said.
surrender-to-eus-outrageous-demand-for-a-e100bn-brexit-divorce-bill-if-
he-becomes-prime-minister/
or shorter
http://tinyurl.com/y9cugqfj
Vidcapper
Jun 2, 2017, 2:52:38 AM6/2/17
to
On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>
> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
>
> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it
would fuck up their spending plans!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Joe
Jun 2, 2017, 3:17:20 AM6/2/17
to
Federal Reserve by then, can simply print QE phase 23, to the exact
amount the EU demands. OK, it's only a gesture, but what political
actions aren't these days?
Certainly, not a penny of the EU shakedown should come out of the
pockets of British taxpayers. It's not our debt, it's the price of
arrogant politicians swanning around 'at the top table' for the last
forty years.
--
Joe
The Todal
Jun 2, 2017, 4:16:48 AM6/2/17
to
matter what spin the Sun might put on that, it's perfectly sensible and
does not mean that Corbyn would roll over and pay whatever is demanded.
The Todal
Jun 2, 2017, 4:19:11 AM6/2/17
to
On 02/06/2017 07:52, Vidcapper wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>>
>> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
>> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
>> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
>> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
>> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>
> But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
> something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
It's something that nobody other than Paul Nuttall would do, and
> On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>>
>> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
>> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
>> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
>> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
>> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>
> But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
> something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
fortunately he won't be in power.
If Britain refuses to honour its treaty obligations it will be
ostracised from the international community.
>
> Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it
> would fuck up their spending plans!
>
>
huge settlement. Theresa May called an election early because she didn't
want you to know what we'd be paying until she had secured another 5
year term of office.
tim...
Jun 2, 2017, 5:08:27 AM6/2/17
to
news:epbdk8...@mid.individual.net...
that we would be leaving.
That's just inviting the EU to give us a take it or leave it bad deal with a
big bill.
Any other negotiation on their patty would be just dumb (and the one thing
the EU negotiators are not, is dumb)
so having been presented with this deal, the fact that he said he would
accept it however bad it is means that he WILL pay whatever is asked of
us/him.
It's been suggest that what he meant by not walking away with no deal is
that he will continually go back to renegotiate until he gets an acceptable
deal. But that's NOT an available option. There is a statutory time limit
on this negotiation and once the clock stops, and the offer on the table is
rejected, we are automatically "out without a deal" (unless we crawl back to
stay in, which he has said he wont do)
tim
> On 01/06/2017 11:42, Yellow wrote:
>> In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>>>> crap campaign.
>>>>
>>>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
>>> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
>>> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
>>> negotiation.
>>
>> I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
>> and pay whatever the EU ask
>
> He never said any such thing. Either you are deliberately misleading us or
> you have carelessly misunderstood something that he said.
he said that he will always accept a bad deal instead of no deal, and also
>> In article <ep7rhv...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 31/05/2017 08:51, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2017 22:26, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, George Osborne rightly savages Theresa May for having a
>>>>> crap campaign.
>>>>
>>>> She can afford to. She knows what the figures are.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> She was asked what exit payment she would be willing to pay, to leave
>>> the EU. She waffled and refused to answer. She was asked what sort of
>>> cap there would be on the dementia tax. She waffled and refused to
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> Her stock answer is that it's all subject to consultation and
>>> negotiation.
>>
>> I see your point of view - Corbyn has said that he would just roll over
>> and pay whatever the EU ask
>
> He never said any such thing. Either you are deliberately misleading us or
> you have carelessly misunderstood something that he said.
that we would be leaving.
That's just inviting the EU to give us a take it or leave it bad deal with a
big bill.
Any other negotiation on their patty would be just dumb (and the one thing
the EU negotiators are not, is dumb)
so having been presented with this deal, the fact that he said he would
accept it however bad it is means that he WILL pay whatever is asked of
us/him.
It's been suggest that what he meant by not walking away with no deal is
that he will continually go back to renegotiate until he gets an acceptable
deal. But that's NOT an available option. There is a statutory time limit
on this negotiation and once the clock stops, and the offer on the table is
rejected, we are automatically "out without a deal" (unless we crawl back to
stay in, which he has said he wont do)
tim
tim...
Jun 2, 2017, 5:11:59 AM6/2/17
to
news:epcl7e...@mid.individual.net...
which having given 2 years notice of our leaving (as required by the treaty)
is absolutely nothing at all
>No matter what spin the Sun might put on that, it's perfectly sensible and
>does not mean that Corbyn would roll over and pay whatever is demanded.
No it doesn't, but his other statements do imply that
is absolutely nothing at all
>No matter what spin the Sun might put on that, it's perfectly sensible and
>does not mean that Corbyn would roll over and pay whatever is demanded.
tim...
Jun 2, 2017, 5:20:52 AM6/2/17
to
news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
we have given the required 2 years notice to leave
all our obligations after that point cease
The EU has 2 years to rearrange its affairs to cope with the loss of our
contributions
It can't just carry on on the basis of, "we don't have to do that and you
still have to pay up"
If it were Poland leaving instead of us, would the EU be saying, "oh because
you are a net recipient of 30 billion per year and because you are leaving
part way though our accounting period, here's your payment for the rest of
the accounting period after you have left"?
I think not!
>> Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it
>> would fuck up their spending plans!
>>
>>
>
> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay a
> huge settlement.
No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and if
it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
We may, of course, choose to pay it to smooth over future trade agreements,
but doing that wont imply that the money was actually owed
>Theresa May called an election early because she didn't want you to know
>what we'd be paying until she had secured another 5 year term of office.
that's too cynical.
ISTM that she wants a bigger majority so that she can agree to pay the sum
for the greater good, without having too many of her party rebel from that
line
tim
> On 02/06/2017 07:52, Vidcapper wrote:
>> On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
>>> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
>>> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
>>> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
>>> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>>
>> But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
>> something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
>
>
> It's something that nobody other than Paul Nuttall would do, and
> fortunately he won't be in power.
>
> If Britain refuses to honour its treaty obligations it will be ostracised
> from the international community.
we are honoring our treaty obligations
>> On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
>>> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
>>> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
>>> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
>>> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>>
>> But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
>> something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
>
>
> It's something that nobody other than Paul Nuttall would do, and
> fortunately he won't be in power.
>
> If Britain refuses to honour its treaty obligations it will be ostracised
> from the international community.
we have given the required 2 years notice to leave
all our obligations after that point cease
The EU has 2 years to rearrange its affairs to cope with the loss of our
contributions
It can't just carry on on the basis of, "we don't have to do that and you
still have to pay up"
If it were Poland leaving instead of us, would the EU be saying, "oh because
you are a net recipient of 30 billion per year and because you are leaving
part way though our accounting period, here's your payment for the rest of
the accounting period after you have left"?
I think not!
>> Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it
>> would fuck up their spending plans!
>>
>>
>
> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay a
> huge settlement.
there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and if
it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
We may, of course, choose to pay it to smooth over future trade agreements,
but doing that wont imply that the money was actually owed
>Theresa May called an election early because she didn't want you to know
>what we'd be paying until she had secured another 5 year term of office.
ISTM that she wants a bigger majority so that she can agree to pay the sum
for the greater good, without having too many of her party rebel from that
line
tim
Yellow
Jun 2, 2017, 5:30:32 AM6/2/17
to
In article <UW7YA.142041$IO2....@fx12.am4>, vidca...@yahoo.co.uk
says...
They would just pick the fruit of the magic money tree.
says...
The Todal
Jun 2, 2017, 5:46:27 AM6/2/17
to
The Todal
Jun 2, 2017, 5:52:06 AM6/2/17
to
On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>
>
>
> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>
>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>> a huge settlement.
>
> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>
> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
And your legal qualifications are....?
>> a huge settlement.
>
> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>
> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if necessary
argue this in a court of law".
But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
Which gives the impression of confusion and uncertainty. The public will
be thinking: the EU has demanded a huge sum of money. Even if we aren't
obliged to pay it, we might offer a large-ish sum of money to help
smooth the negotiations, right? In the same way that you might offer a
handout to a family member who has just been evicted from their flat, right?
Yellow
Jun 2, 2017, 6:10:44 AM6/2/17
to
In article <epcqfg...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
says...
I see Corbyn is talking about getting another £250 billion pot of gold
from somewhere that he is then going to use to create a million jobs.
"When Labour talks about job creation we mean decent jobs, jobs which
pay a real living wage, which people can get by on, and which give
people a sense of pride and purpose,"
Out of interest, you could just give 1,000,000 people "the living wage"
for 15 years on £250 billion.
And I assume the 'logic' then goes that they will "pay tax" and that
will pay back the £250 billion.....
says...
from somewhere that he is then going to use to create a million jobs.
"When Labour talks about job creation we mean decent jobs, jobs which
pay a real living wage, which people can get by on, and which give
people a sense of pride and purpose,"
Out of interest, you could just give 1,000,000 people "the living wage"
for 15 years on £250 billion.
And I assume the 'logic' then goes that they will "pay tax" and that
will pay back the £250 billion.....
Mike Swift
Jun 2, 2017, 6:42:33 AM6/2/17
to
In article <UW7YA.142041$IO2....@fx12.am4>, Vidcapper
<vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
<vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it would fuck
>up their spending plans!
How do you fuck up something that is already fucked?
>up their spending plans!
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Norman Wells
Jun 2, 2017, 7:29:04 AM6/2/17
to
On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>> a huge settlement.
>>
>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>
>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>
>
> And your legal qualifications are....?
>
> If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
> Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
> the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
> believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if necessary
> argue this in a court of law".
>
> But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
David Davis and others have in fact:
> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>> a huge settlement.
>>
>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>
>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>
>
> And your legal qualifications are....?
>
> If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
> Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
> the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
> believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if necessary
> argue this in a court of law".
>
> But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
including the House of Lords Finance Committee:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/uk-could-quit-eu-without-paying-a-penny-say-lords
and the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4471334/LEO-McKINSTRY-explains-EU-owes-58bn.html
and I personally heard David Davies on the Today programme on 3rd May
saying if there's no deal in two years we won't pay anything.
> Which gives the impression of confusion and uncertainty. The public will
> be thinking: the EU has demanded a huge sum of money. Even if we aren't
> obliged to pay it, we might offer a large-ish sum of money to help
> smooth the negotiations, right? In the same way that you might offer a
> handout to a family member who has just been evicted from their flat,
> right?
can't comprehend that? Everything is up for grabs. Everything will be
argued over. And if possible a mutually beneficial agreement will be
reached.
As always.
Handsome Jack
Jun 2, 2017, 12:15:29 PM6/2/17
to
The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> posted
evidence for any legal basis to pay the EU any exit fee. I can't see
any. You've been asked for it, and failed to reply.
>If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
>Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements
I'm not sure I would expect that at all. They might. They might not. Why
should they?
>. Something along the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations
>and we don't believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will
>if necessary argue this in a court of law".
>
>But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
>
>Which gives the impression of confusion and uncertainty.
Not to me.
>The public will be thinking: the EU has demanded a huge sum of money.
>Even if we aren't obliged to pay it, we might offer a large-ish sum of
>money to help smooth the negotiations, right? In the same way that you
>might offer a handout to a family member who has just been evicted from
>their flat, right?
Yes, that's certainly possible. And that might explain why they don't
want to mention it now - because then people might start to think of it
as their right.
--
Jack
>On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>
>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>> a huge settlement.
>>
>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>
>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>
>And your legal qualifications are....?
What does that matter? What matters is whether anyone can produce any
>>
>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>> a huge settlement.
>>
>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>
>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>
>And your legal qualifications are....?
evidence for any legal basis to pay the EU any exit fee. I can't see
any. You've been asked for it, and failed to reply.
>If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
>Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements
should they?
>. Something along the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations
>and we don't believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will
>if necessary argue this in a court of law".
>
>But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
>
>Which gives the impression of confusion and uncertainty.
>The public will be thinking: the EU has demanded a huge sum of money.
>Even if we aren't obliged to pay it, we might offer a large-ish sum of
>money to help smooth the negotiations, right? In the same way that you
>might offer a handout to a family member who has just been evicted from
>their flat, right?
want to mention it now - because then people might start to think of it
as their right.
--
Jack
The Todal
Jun 2, 2017, 1:14:08 PM6/2/17
to
On 02/06/2017 12:29, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
>> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>>> a huge settlement.
>>>
>>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>>
>>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>>
>>
>> And your legal qualifications are....?
>>
>> If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
>> Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
>> the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
>> believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if
>> necessary argue this in a court of law".
>>
>> But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
>
> David Davis and others have in fact:
Where?
> On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
>> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>>> a huge settlement.
>>>
>>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>>
>>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>>
>>
>> And your legal qualifications are....?
>>
>> If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
>> Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
>> the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
>> believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if
>> necessary argue this in a court of law".
>>
>> But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
>
> David Davis and others have in fact:
>
> including the House of Lords Finance Committee:
Not Theresa May or David Davis or the Attorney General, then. After
> including the House of Lords Finance Committee:
all, our Brexit negotiations are not being conducted by a House of Lords
finance committee.
> and the Daily Mail:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4471334/LEO-McKINSTRY-explains-EU-owes-58bn.html
interest to his friends and his family but again, he's not part of any
Brexit negotiating team.
>
>
> and I personally heard David Davies on the Today programme on 3rd May
> saying if there's no deal in two years we won't pay anything.
So my point remains valid.
When the bailiffs knock on your door, Norman, and tell you that they are
repossessing your home unless you pay fifteen grand, you can tell us
that it's part of a process called "negotiation" if you like. But we'll
be wondering whether you owe the money or not.
Norman Wells
Jun 2, 2017, 2:21:27 PM6/2/17
to
On 02/06/2017 18:14, The Todal wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 12:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>>>> a huge settlement.
>>>>
>>>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>>>
>>>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>>>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>>>
>>>
>>> And your legal qualifications are....?
>>>
>>> If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
>>> Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
>>> the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
>>> believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if
>>> necessary argue this in a court of law".
>>>
>>> But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
>>
>> David Davis and others have in fact:
>
> Where?
>>
>> including the House of Lords Finance Committee:
>
> Not Theresa May or David Davis or the Attorney General, then. After
> all, our Brexit negotiations are not being conducted by a House of Lords
> finance committee.
Though obviously with their advice. Bit pointless of them to go to so
> On 02/06/2017 12:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:epclbs...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I've said before, whichever government is in power will have to pay
>>>>> a huge settlement.
>>>>
>>>> No they(we) wont HAVE to pay
>>>>
>>>> there is no legal basis for the huge sums that the EU are demanding and
>>>> if it did ever get to court to be resolved they would lose.
>>>
>>>
>>> And your legal qualifications are....?
>>>
>>> If you were right, we'd expect Theresa May or David Davis or our
>>> Attorney General to issue some reassuring statements. Something along
>>> the lines of: "we've analysed our treaty obligations and we don't
>>> believe we have any obligation to pay an exit fee. We will if
>>> necessary argue this in a court of law".
>>>
>>> But they don't give us any reassuring statements.
>>
>> David Davis and others have in fact:
>
> Where?
>>
>> including the House of Lords Finance Committee:
>
> Not Theresa May or David Davis or the Attorney General, then. After
> all, our Brexit negotiations are not being conducted by a House of Lords
> finance committee.
much trouble considering it otherwise.
>> and the Daily Mail:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4471334/LEO-McKINSTRY-explains-EU-owes-58bn.html
>
> The opinions of a journalist called Leo McKinstry are no doubt of great
> interest to his friends and his family but again, he's not part of any
> Brexit negotiating team.
and denigrate the person.
Substance too difficult for you?
>> and I personally heard David Davies on the Today programme on 3rd May
>> saying if there's no deal in two years we won't pay anything.
>
> Which is certainly not a reassurance that we don't owe anything.
> So my point remains valid.
> When the bailiffs knock on your door, Norman, and tell you that they are
> repossessing your home unless you pay fifteen grand, you can tell us
> that it's part of a process called "negotiation" if you like. But we'll
> be wondering whether you owe the money or not.
EU doesn't hold any water. There's no court that can make us pay if we
don't think we're liable, or punish us if we don't.
Yellow
Jun 2, 2017, 4:18:53 PM6/2/17
to
In article <epdol5...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...
I always imagined it would be a game of chicken. The EU will say "pay £x
million or you will not get a trade deal" so the UK will say "we will
pay nothing or we will impose tariffs on imports" and so it will back
and forth until an agreement is reached.
And that is what concerns me about some of our politicians implying that
the UK should just pay what is asked - we lose our deck, one card at a
time.
It is like the idea of giving EU folk in the UK leave to stay -
something Corbyn is still saying he will do automatically as one of his
first jobs - but there is so much more too it than a happy chappy just
saying "let it be so". The EU apparently want their citizens to have
their rights to stay extended to their families, even members who have
never been to the UK before, and for the EU Court to have jurisdiction
over them all. And then there are health and pension rights and whatever
else.
So surely, it all needs to be discussed, with reference to UK citizens
rights in the EU too, and some middle compromise reached.
But the Labour mantra goes that if the UK is nice to the EU then the EU
will be nice back......
million or you will not get a trade deal" so the UK will say "we will
pay nothing or we will impose tariffs on imports" and so it will back
and forth until an agreement is reached.
And that is what concerns me about some of our politicians implying that
the UK should just pay what is asked - we lose our deck, one card at a
time.
It is like the idea of giving EU folk in the UK leave to stay -
something Corbyn is still saying he will do automatically as one of his
first jobs - but there is so much more too it than a happy chappy just
saying "let it be so". The EU apparently want their citizens to have
their rights to stay extended to their families, even members who have
never been to the UK before, and for the EU Court to have jurisdiction
over them all. And then there are health and pension rights and whatever
else.
So surely, it all needs to be discussed, with reference to UK citizens
rights in the EU too, and some middle compromise reached.
But the Labour mantra goes that if the UK is nice to the EU then the EU
will be nice back......
petert...@gmail.com
Jun 2, 2017, 11:22:05 PM6/2/17
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 18:14:04 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:
snipped
>When the bailiffs knock on your door, Norman, and tell you that they are
>repossessing your home unless you pay fifteen grand, you can tell us
>that it's part of a process called "negotiation" if you like. But we'll
>be wondering whether you owe the money or not.
I have been warned I am to be asked to pay £12K in "wasted" court
costs by a bailiff knocking on my door. I don't havbe a door as I live
in my wifes house when I am around. I offered £5 a month which was
declined and instead I was told it was considered I had a beneficial
interest in my wife's house so a charge would be sought on it. Now out
of the blue I get a letter saying I can pay £10 a month. Has there
been a recent ruling in the courts that has forbidden a charge being
put on my wife's house?
wrote:
snipped
>When the bailiffs knock on your door, Norman, and tell you that they are
>repossessing your home unless you pay fifteen grand, you can tell us
>that it's part of a process called "negotiation" if you like. But we'll
>be wondering whether you owe the money or not.
costs by a bailiff knocking on my door. I don't havbe a door as I live
in my wifes house when I am around. I offered £5 a month which was
declined and instead I was told it was considered I had a beneficial
interest in my wife's house so a charge would be sought on it. Now out
of the blue I get a letter saying I can pay £10 a month. Has there
been a recent ruling in the courts that has forbidden a charge being
put on my wife's house?
tim...
Jun 3, 2017, 6:28:41 AM6/3/17
to
news:epdkmt...@mid.individual.net...
well how about this one then:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4559132/EU-s-dangerous-Brexit-demands-slammed-ex-Euro-judge.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4559132/EU-s-dangerous-Brexit-demands-slammed-ex-Euro-judge.html
tim...
Jun 3, 2017, 6:31:27 AM6/3/17
to
"Yellow" <no...@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.339bd8861...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <epdol5...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...
>>
>> On 02/06/2017 18:14, The Todal wrote:
>> > On 02/06/2017 12:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>> >> On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
>> >>> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>> It's exactly what you asked for.
>>
>> > So my point remains valid.
>>
>> Only in your own mind.
>>
>> > When the bailiffs knock on your door, Norman, and tell you that they
>> > are
>> > repossessing your home unless you pay fifteen grand, you can tell us
>> > that it's part of a process called "negotiation" if you like. But we'll
>> > be wondering whether you owe the money or not.
>>
>> And that's exactly the right approach. But the analogy with leaving the
>> EU doesn't hold any water. There's no court that can make us pay if we
>> don't think we're liable, or punish us if we don't.
>
> I always imagined it would be a game of chicken. The EU will say "pay £x
> million or you will not get a trade deal"
except they haven't said that
>>
>> On 02/06/2017 18:14, The Todal wrote:
>> > On 02/06/2017 12:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>> >> On 02/06/2017 10:52, The Todal wrote:
>> >>> On 02/06/2017 10:20, tim... wrote:
>> It's exactly what you asked for.
>>
>> > So my point remains valid.
>>
>> Only in your own mind.
>>
>> > When the bailiffs knock on your door, Norman, and tell you that they
>> > are
>> > repossessing your home unless you pay fifteen grand, you can tell us
>> > that it's part of a process called "negotiation" if you like. But we'll
>> > be wondering whether you owe the money or not.
>>
>> And that's exactly the right approach. But the analogy with leaving the
>> EU doesn't hold any water. There's no court that can make us pay if we
>> don't think we're liable, or punish us if we don't.
>
> I always imagined it would be a game of chicken. The EU will say "pay £x
> million or you will not get a trade deal"
they have said pay x or we won't even let you get to the table at the trade
deal
there is no guarantee that having paid x, there will be a deal, with that
ofer.
tim...
Jun 3, 2017, 6:32:18 AM6/3/17
to
"Yellow" <no...@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.339bd8861...@News.Individual.NET...
tim
abelard
Jun 3, 2017, 6:34:07 AM6/3/17
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:19:08 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:
>If Britain refuses to honour its treaty obligations it will be
>ostracised from the international community.
what 'obligations' are they?
please submit a detailed bill....
wrote:
>If Britain refuses to honour its treaty obligations it will be
>ostracised from the international community.
please submit a detailed bill....
abelard
Jun 3, 2017, 6:35:25 AM6/3/17
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:52:04 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:
>And your legal qualifications are....?
you sound like a divorce lawyer trying too blakmail a husband
but with very little leverage
wrote:
>And your legal qualifications are....?
but with very little leverage
abelard
Jun 3, 2017, 6:44:46 AM6/3/17
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:10:48 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <epcqfg...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
>says...
>>
>> On 02/06/2017 10:30, Yellow wrote:
>> > In article <UW7YA.142041$IO2....@fx12.am4>, vidca...@yahoo.co.uk
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
>> >>> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
>> >>> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
>> >>> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
>> >>> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>> >>
>> >> But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
>> >> something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
>> >>
>> >> Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it
>> >> would fuck up their spending plans!
>> >
>> > They would just pick the fruit of the magic money tree.
>> >
>>
>> Whereas the Tories would rummage around in the Great Austerity Pit.
>
>I see Corbyn is talking about getting another Ł250 billion pot of gold
companies and their workers...
and they will be good jobs!
>"When Labour talks about job creation we mean decent jobs, jobs which
>pay a real living wage, which people can get by on, and which give
>people a sense of pride and purpose,"
>
>Out of interest, you could just give 1,000,000 people "the living wage"
>for 15 years on Ł250 billion.
the more money he prints the more workers(unionised government
'workers') he can pay...
then they will try to spend that money nd a cornucopia of free
cake will suddenly manifest...
the free cake makers will all be 'working' for the nhs and the police
you must try to comprehend lse 'economics'
wrote:
>In article <epcqfg...@mid.individual.net>, the_...@icloud.com
>says...
>>
>> On 02/06/2017 10:30, Yellow wrote:
>> > In article <UW7YA.142041$IO2....@fx12.am4>, vidca...@yahoo.co.uk
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 01/06/2017 22:00, The Todal wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Neither Corbyn nor May actually knows what sum is payable - but the
>> >>> diference between them is that May has had the advice of government
>> >>> lawyers and civil servants. She ought to be able to tell the nation what
>> >>> figure is payable. She prefers not to, probably because it is such a
>> >>> shocking figure that she'd lose the election.
>> >>
>> >> But the point is, she doesn't *have* to pay it - she can just walk away,
>> >> something I do not believe that Corbyn would do.
>> >>
>> >> Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it
>> >> would fuck up their spending plans!
>> >
>> > They would just pick the fruit of the magic money tree.
>> >
>>
>> Whereas the Tories would rummage around in the Great Austerity Pit.
>
>from somewhere that he is then going to use to create a million jobs.
he's going to fund 6 billion jobs by taking money from productive
companies and their workers...
and they will be good jobs!
>"When Labour talks about job creation we mean decent jobs, jobs which
>pay a real living wage, which people can get by on, and which give
>people a sense of pride and purpose,"
>
>Out of interest, you could just give 1,000,000 people "the living wage"
>
>And I assume the 'logic' then goes that they will "pay tax" and that
>will pay back the Ł250 billion.....
>And I assume the 'logic' then goes that they will "pay tax" and that
the more money he prints the more workers(unionised government
'workers') he can pay...
then they will try to spend that money nd a cornucopia of free
cake will suddenly manifest...
the free cake makers will all be 'working' for the nhs and the police
you must try to comprehend lse 'economics'
abelard
Jun 3, 2017, 6:45:16 AM6/3/17
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:34:18 +0100, Mike Swift <mike....@yeton.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <UW7YA.142041$IO2....@fx12.am4>, Vidcapper
><vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it would fuck
>>up their spending plans!
>
>How do you fuck up something that is already fucked?
with great confidence
wrote:
>In article <UW7YA.142041$IO2....@fx12.am4>, Vidcapper
><vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>Also, if a Labour gov't were to agree to a very large settlement, it would fuck
>>up their spending plans!
>
>How do you fuck up something that is already fucked?
Yellow
Jun 3, 2017, 6:46:10 AM6/3/17
to
In article <ogu30t$om1$1...@dont-email.me>, tims_n...@yahoo.com says...
As I have found to my cost in business, nice rarely works. To start with
you think it does, but generally you are just being played, strung along
until they have what they want.
It is a hard lesson, and one that needs to be learned extremely quickly
- be fair, but don't be a doormat.
you think it does, but generally you are just being played, strung along
until they have what they want.
It is a hard lesson, and one that needs to be learned extremely quickly
- be fair, but don't be a doormat.
abelard
Jun 3, 2017, 6:47:43 AM6/3/17
to
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 10:07:40 +0100, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It's been suggest that what he meant by not walking away with no deal is
>that he will continually go back to renegotiate until he gets an acceptable
>deal. But that's NOT an available option. There is a statutory time limit
>on this negotiation and once the clock stops, and the offer on the table is
>rejected, we are automatically "out without a deal" (unless we crawl back to
>stay in, which he has said he wont do)
all you need is lurve...
wrote:
>It's been suggest that what he meant by not walking away with no deal is
>that he will continually go back to renegotiate until he gets an acceptable
>deal. But that's NOT an available option. There is a statutory time limit
>on this negotiation and once the clock stops, and the offer on the table is
>rejected, we are automatically "out without a deal" (unless we crawl back to
>stay in, which he has said he wont do)
Ophelia
Jun 3, 2017, 11:29:18 AM6/3/17
to
"Yellow" wrote in message
It is like the idea of giving EU folk in the UK leave to stay -
something Corbyn is still saying he will do automatically as one of his
first jobs - but there is so much more too it than a happy chappy just
saying "let it be so". The EU apparently want their citizens to have
their rights to stay extended to their families, even members who have
never been to the UK before, and for the EU Court to have jurisdiction
over them all. And then there are health and pension rights and whatever
else.
===
"‘Colonial’ EU Wants Europeans a ‘Super-Privileged Caste’ in UK After
Brexit"
"Europeans living in the UK will be “a super-privileged caste” with more
rights than Britons if the European Union (EU) has its way in Brexit
negotiations, experts have said.
The UK will also be subjected to a form of colonialism, Professor Franklin
Dehousse, an expert in EU law at the University of Liège, believes, if EU
courts retain their supremacy over British law after it has left the bloc
and lost its ability to influence laws and appointments."
More here:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/02/colonial-eu-wants-europeans-super-privileged-caste-uk-brexit/
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
It is like the idea of giving EU folk in the UK leave to stay -
something Corbyn is still saying he will do automatically as one of his
first jobs - but there is so much more too it than a happy chappy just
saying "let it be so". The EU apparently want their citizens to have
their rights to stay extended to their families, even members who have
never been to the UK before, and for the EU Court to have jurisdiction
over them all. And then there are health and pension rights and whatever
else.
"‘Colonial’ EU Wants Europeans a ‘Super-Privileged Caste’ in UK After
Brexit"
"Europeans living in the UK will be “a super-privileged caste” with more
rights than Britons if the European Union (EU) has its way in Brexit
negotiations, experts have said.
The UK will also be subjected to a form of colonialism, Professor Franklin
Dehousse, an expert in EU law at the University of Liège, believes, if EU
courts retain their supremacy over British law after it has left the bloc
and lost its ability to influence laws and appointments."
More here:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/02/colonial-eu-wants-europeans-super-privileged-caste-uk-brexit/
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Vidcapper
Jun 4, 2017, 2:47:58 AM6/4/17
to
On 03/06/2017 16:29, Ophelia wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/02/colonial-eu-wants-europeans-super-privileged-caste-uk-brexit/
>
Any claim posted on Breitbart is automatically suspect, unless
comprehensively backed up by more mainstream news sources.
>
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/02/colonial-eu-wants-europeans-super-privileged-caste-uk-brexit/
>
Any claim posted on Breitbart is automatically suspect, unless
comprehensively backed up by more mainstream news sources.
>
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
tim...
Jun 4, 2017, 6:54:54 AM6/4/17
to
"Vidcapper" <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w2OYA.333065$op5.2...@fx39.am4...
Ophelia
Jun 4, 2017, 12:52:54 PM6/4/17
to
"tim..." wrote in message news:oh0on9$n8n$1...@dont-email.me...
==
Thanks, tim:) Why is Breitbart suspect? After I have received a post from
them I usually see it in the general news.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Thanks, tim:) Why is Breitbart suspect? After I have received a post from
them I usually see it in the general news.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Byker
Jun 4, 2017, 3:42:18 PM6/4/17
to
> Any claim posted on Breitbart is automatically suspect, unless
> comprehensively backed up by more mainstream news sources.
Which are soon equally derided.
> comprehensively backed up by more mainstream news sources.
Hence the use of URLs that aren't telltale: http://www.5z8.info/nsfw_ussg
Vidcapper
Jun 5, 2017, 2:46:05 AM6/5/17
to
right-wing, even by American standards - and it seems to have retained
them since his death.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Basil Jet
Jun 5, 2017, 3:09:28 AM6/5/17
to
here's the evidence". Your answer is useless by comparison.
abelard
Jun 5, 2017, 1:21:32 PM6/5/17
to
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 08:09:24 +0100, Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
i'm told lying is working for jerry..and for his gf...
the future home secretary
wrote:
the future home secretary
0 new messages