alchresearch Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Interesting article here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100205189/labour-eastleigh-and-the-crucifixion-of-st-john-ofarrell/ This morning I rang the Labour Party press office and asked if the party had been aware O’Farrell had a book coming out the week after the Eastleigh by-election when they selected him as candidate. They haven’t rung me back. Someone got some nice free publicity to further his media career! The Spectator reports "Their candidate John O’Farrell blames voters being anti-politics, not anti-Labour.". If voters were "anti-politics" how come UKIP did so well and the turnout was 52.8% rather than the usual 20 or 30%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Interesting article here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100205189/labour-eastleigh-and-the-crucifixion-of-st-john-ofarrell/ Someone got some nice free publicity to further his media career! The Spectator reports "Their candidate John O’Farrell blames voters being anti-politics, not anti-Labour.". If voters were "anti-politics" how come UKIP did so well and the turnout was 52.8% rather than the usual 20 or 30%? I presume John was selected locally-are Eastleigh members also pursuing such a career.Voting UKIP is an anti-political act inasmuch that few people have any experience of their philosophy other than they are anti- this anti that,a stance which typifies many fascist thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Flat rate tax is regressive,and is porly understood.It seems fair on a superficial level but if tax allowances are used it becomes regressive,and it would probably have to be set at rate in excess of 30% of income. Answer: abolish those so-precious allowances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 The liebore paid for smear campaigns from the U Are Fools are wearing thin, just shows how desperate they are. Funny how the UKIP voters think that telling the truth equates with a smear campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Funny how the UKIP voters think that telling the truth equates with a smear campaign. How many have you asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I don't see the connection. Eastleigh was a Lib Dem constituency, not Tory they would be winning the seat back since they lost it in 1994 which is completely different to that of Thatcher winning back seats lost in by-elections. ---------- Post added 03-03-2013 at 20:27 ---------- What are the odds of Labour winning the next election? Ladbokes have Labour as firm favourites at 1/2 to have the highest no of MP's, the Cons are now 13/8. ---------- Post added 04-03-2013 at 19:52 ---------- 11/8? I'm not much of a gambler but doesn't that mean if you bet £8 on the Tories winning the next election, the bookies would pay out £11 if they did? Are they really long odds? That's about the odds you get on the sun shining tomorrow. I know gambling must be difficuilt when you are a student Ant, but the odds are now even more attractive at 2/1, put your wonga where your mouth is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Answer: abolish those so-precious allowances. That would mean the poor pay low amounts of tax and also receive benefits,creating more administration-hardly cutting red-tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Nope. The 'poor', those on minimum wage, should have to pay no income tax at all. 'Allowances', on the other hand, are the mean by which the not-poor contrive to pay less tax than appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Nope. The 'poor', those on minimum wage, should have to pay no income tax at all. 'Allowances', on the other hand, are the mean by which the not-poor contrive to pay less tax than appropriate. Many minimum wage earners are part-time,so they remain poor.If you remove all allowances,then everyone pays a flat rate,which is therefore highly damaging to the poor.They will therefore claim benefits quite rightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 The USA's wealth is due to the size of its population doing a lot of work. Are you advocating that the UK bring in slavery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.