Are Momentum trying to oust Labour Councillors?

[silver fox]

1.Momentum has already admitted "Much of the Electoral Commission investigation refers to a series of administrative errors that can be easily rectified".
I shall get back to you when the 'administrate errors' unravel.

2.I cannot understand why the far left chose an America firm when the Venezuela model was available.

3.That is a funny question old bean!
How many in the UK would vote for the IRA? That is what you would get with Corbyn....plus the other 'friends' Labour are promising to support in faraway places.

Talking to the IRA or indeed any other terrorist group is a far cry from supporting the aims and methods of that group, fact remains when it comes to reaching a peaceful settlement with anyone there are only two options, one defeat that group totally, or talk and discuss with them, take your pick.

When it comes to ill chosen bed fellows, may I refer the honourable member to the blood money paid to DUP again.

[Hamble]

Talking to the IRA or indeed any other terrorist group is a far cry from supporting the aims and methods of that group, fact remains when it comes to reaching a peaceful settlement with anyone there are only two options, one defeat that group totally, or talk and discuss with them, take your pick.

When it comes to ill chosen bed fellows, may I refer the honourable member to the blood money paid to DUP again.

?
Corbyn opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement.

The money secured by the DUP went to the use all of Northern Ireland's benefit.

N.I had failed to form a 'power sharing' government before the deal between the Tory's and the DUP.
Sinn Fein no doubt holding out for Corbyn to be PM.

[silver fox]

?


The money secured by the DUP went to the use all of Northern Ireland's benefit.

[Hamble]

All there in black & white.

No mention of the lack of a working government.
Sinn Fein would want to avoid direct rule from London at all costs.

The money will be used to boost the region's economy and invest in new infrastructure, health, education and other sectors.

This breaks down as follows:
•£400 million for infrastructure projects (£200 million per year for two years)
•£200 million for improvement of health service (£100 million per year for two years)
•£150 million for ultra-fast broadband (£75 million per year for two years)
•£100 million for tackling deprivation (£20 million per year for five years)
•£100 million to address immediate pressures in health and education (£50 million per year for two years)
•£50 million for mental health services (£10 million per year for five years)

[silver fox]

All there in black & white.

No mention of the lack of a working government.
Sinn Fein would want to avoid direct rule from London at all costs.

The money will be used to boost the region's economy and invest in new infrastructure, health, education and other sectors.

This breaks down as follows:
•£400 million for infrastructure projects (£200 million per year for two years)
•£200 million for improvement of health service (£100 million per year for two years)
•£150 million for ultra-fast broadband (£75 million per year for two years)
•£100 million for tackling deprivation (£20 million per year for five years)
•£100 million to address immediate pressures in health and education (£50 million per year for two years)
•£50 million for mental health services (£10 million per year for five years)

Possibly somewhat cynical, but if the DUP are from the same genetic stream as their new found Tory friends, I will believe that when I see it happen.

All the funding that continually gets promised for the North of England gets watered down or conveniently forgotten before it becomes time to actually do something.

Plus of course I think that much of mainland UK could also do with help in the areas mentioned, so why has NI suddenly become a priority, nothing to do with propping up a defunct, tottering shambles of a government of course.

Hamble, know full well that have a pathological fear of anything that you feel to be remotely Socialist, but please don't let your fears drive your excuses for the Tories and their devious methods.

[Hamble]

Possibly somewhat cynical, but if the DUP are from the same genetic stream as their new found Tory friends, I will believe that when I see it happen.

All the funding that continually gets promised for the North of England gets watered down or conveniently forgotten before it becomes time to actually do something.

Plus of course I think that much of mainland UK could also do with help in the areas mentioned, so why has NI suddenly become a priority, nothing to do with propping up a defunct, tottering shambles of a government of course.

Hamble, know full well that have a pathological fear of anything that you feel to be remotely Socialist, but please don't let your fears drive your excuses for the Tories and their devious methods.

N.I needs more help to recover and rebuild from its traumatic past.

What do you mean?

I have some very fond thoughts on socialists.

1.As a concept 'Socialism' only works on paper.
2. As a party I am quite happy with socialists in Political opposition.

[silver fox]

N.I needs more help to recover and rebuild from its traumatic past.

What do you mean?

I have some very fond thoughts on socialists.

1.As a concept 'Socialism' only works on paper.
2. As a party I am quite happy with socialists in Political opposition.

As you should know by now, I'm not a Communist or even an ardent Socialist, but I do wish to see politicians who work for the people, not the city financiers, the already ultra wealthy, the big corporations who devote much of their time ensuring that their profit streams and accumulated wealth stays firmly in their pockets, remember much of this wealth comes from the ordinary people in the first place, but any thought of any equable distribution is an alien concept, the phrase adopted by supercilious Tories "trickle down of wealth" is a total fabrication, it doesn't happen, in fact quite the reverse.

As to your final comment would prefer the Tories to be at about the level of the Lib-Dems, where they can howl at the moon as much as they wish.

[Hamble]

As you should know by now, I'm not a Communist or even an ardent Socialist, but I do wish to see politicians who work for the people, not the city financiers, the already ultra wealthy, the big corporations who devote much of their time ensuring that their profit streams and accumulated wealth stays firmly in their pockets, remember much of this wealth comes from the ordinary people in the first place, but any thought of any equable distribution is an alien concept, the phrase adopted by supercilious Tories "trickle down of wealth" is a total fabrication, it doesn't happen, in fact quite the reverse.

As to your final comment would prefer the Tories to be at about the level of the Lib-Dems, where they can howl at the moon as much as they wish.

"Much of the wealth comes from ordinary people"?

Do they pay the most amount of tax?

[silver fox]

"Much of the wealth comes from ordinary people"?

Do they pay the most amount of tax?

No, they just pay the bills for energy, transport, banking, rents, loans, mortgages etc and that's were the profits come from for all the utilities, the banks etc, etc.

PS
I know that Tories are fond of shouting that the upper wealthy pay the lion's share of tax, but think logically, is this true in reality?

Any supplier of anything or everything knows very well that there will be a tax implication along the way, those same suppliers will obviously make an allowance in their pricing structure, no matter how many or few hands this supply goes through, eventually there will be an end user, now tell me who actually funds or pays taxes?

[Hamble]

No, they just pay the bills for energy, transport, banking, rents, loans, mortgages etc and that's were the profits come from for all the utilities, the banks etc, etc.

PS
I know that Tories are fond of shouting that the upper wealthy pay the lion's share of tax, but think logically, is this true in reality?

Any supplier of anything or everything knows very well that there will be a tax implication along the way, those same suppliers will obviously make an allowance in their pricing structure, no matter how many or few hands this supply goes through, eventually there will be an end user, now tell me who actually funds or pays taxes?

Quote
"The tax burden shouldered by Britain's wealthiest has almost trebled since the 1970s, analysis of historic data reveals - further undermining the Conservative's reputation as a "low tax" party.

Daily Telegraph analysis of nearly four decades of tax and income records shows high earners are now responsible for paying a higher proportion of Britain's total income tax bill than they have done under any Labour government.

Today the top 1pc of income taxpayers, who earn in excess of £162,000 a year, now pay nearly a third (27pc) of all income tax.

By comparison under James Callaghan's notoriously "high tax" Labour government in 1976, the top 1pc paid just 11pc of total income tax receipts."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...raph-analysis/

Wealth creation- I am having trouble with your definition.

Wealth creators are generally those who put up the backing and take all the financial risks.

Surely the majority of people who work for a 'wealth creator' accept the fact they work for someone who (having took all the risks and responsibility) should be paid more and in turn pay more tax.

[silver fox]

Quote
"The tax burden shouldered by Britain's wealthiest has almost trebled since the 1970s, analysis of historic data reveals - further undermining the Conservative's reputation as a "low tax" party.

Daily Telegraph analysis of nearly four decades of tax and income records shows high earners are now responsible for paying a higher proportion of Britain's total income tax bill than they have done under any Labour government.

Today the top 1pc of income taxpayers, who earn in excess of £162,000 a year, now pay nearly a third (27pc) of all income tax.

By comparison under James Callaghan's notoriously "high tax" Labour government in 1976, the top 1pc paid just 11pc of total income tax receipts."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...raph-analysis/

Wealth creation- I am having trouble with your definition.

Wealth creators are generally those who put up the backing and take all the financial risks.

Surely the majority of people who work for a 'wealth creator' accept the fact they work for someone who (having took all the risks and responsibility) should be paid more and in turn pay more tax.

Initially you simply repeat standard Tory mantra, now we come to investors and wealth creators, sure if an investor or wealth creator puts up the money, expertise and endeavour, takes the risk, makes a profit, no problem, however just look around a little, most investors don't want risk, they want nice safe guarantees usually through government, aka taxpayer, the company building nuclear power stations are only doing so after being given price guarantees, the rail operators are still given handouts, major investment comes from the government not the rail companies, the financiers make up their own rules as they go along and make their money on someone else's back, remember financiers produce or manufacture nothing, every penny is earned at someone else's expense.

Take the big property and landowners, many are foreign, others have simply inherited their holdings because some ancestor smiled at the right people, no risk or creation there, just simply sit back charge exorbitant rents and believe it is their god given right to be in charge.

Saw a piece on BBC News this evening, we are all aware of the chronic housing shortage, the plight of homeless people, some in temporary accommodation some literally on the streets, in Helsinki the government and local authority have got a grip on the situation, they have built housing which is to a good standard and affordable to all, this has had the effect of curbing rents, plus has eliminated the homeless situation completely, previously they had the same problems we see in most of our cities, people in temporary accommodation or hostels and they kept a total of 800 hostel places to help rough sleepers, now everyone is granted a permanent home within days, they keep only 50 hostel places for emergencies and guess what it actually works out to be more economical than sticking families in temporary accommodation, leaving rough sleepers out.

Could you possibly see "caring sharing Tories" taking this route, highly unlikely because this would reduce rents all round, builders were forced to get on and build houses or lose the land, yet when the system came into play building workers had regular work, the building companies still made a profit, landlords had to get their act together.

[Hamble]

Initially you simply repeat standard Tory mantra, now we come to investors and wealth creators, sure if an investor or wealth creator puts up the money, expertise and endeavour, takes the risk, makes a profit, no problem, however just look around a little, most investors don't want risk, they want nice safe guarantees usually through government, aka taxpayer, the company building nuclear power stations are only doing so after being given price guarantees, the rail operators are still given handouts, major investment comes from the government not the rail companies, the financiers make up their own rules as they go along and make their money on someone else's back, remember financiers produce or manufacture nothing, every penny is earned at someone else's expense.

Take the big property and landowners, many are foreign, others have simply inherited their holdings because some ancestor smiled at the right people, no risk or creation there, just simply sit back charge exorbitant rents and believe it is their god given right to be in charge.

Saw a piece on BBC News this evening, we are all aware of the chronic housing shortage, the plight of homeless people, some in temporary accommodation some literally on the streets, in Helsinki the government and local authority have got a grip on the situation, they have built housing which is to a good standard and affordable to all, this has had the effect of curbing rents, plus has eliminated the homeless situation completely, previously they had the same problems we see in most of our cities, people in temporary accommodation or hostels and they kept a total of 800 hostel places to help rough sleepers, now everyone is granted a permanent home within days, they keep only 50 hostel places for emergencies and guess what it actually works out to be more economical than sticking families in temporary accommodation, leaving rough sleepers out.

Could you possibly see "caring sharing Tories" taking this route, highly unlikely because this would reduce rents all round, builders were forced to get on and build houses or lose the land, yet when the system came into play building workers had regular work, the building companies still made a profit, landlords had to get their act together.

Are we talking taxpayer here?

You are not taking into consideration the constant flow of people into Britain needing accommodation for which they cannot pay themselves.

You want the taxpayer to fund the building of homes for people to live in
with rent paid.
The most needy would be top of the list.
Jobless migrant parents with children?
The mentally ill or substance damaged people in B&B not able to look after themselves never mind a brick house and bills?

Where are the 1 million plus illegal immigrants in the UK living?

[silver fox]

Are we talking taxpayer here?

You are not taking into consideration the constant flow of people into Britain needing accommodation for which they cannot pay themselves.

You want the taxpayer to fund the building of homes for people to live in
with rent paid.
The most needy would be top of the list.
Jobless migrant parents with children?
The mentally ill or substance damaged people in B&B not able to look after themselves never mind a brick house and bills?

Where are the 1 million plus illegal immigrants in the UK living?

Simple, in or out of the EU we could and should have controlled immigration and we still can, but the problems remain in that Labour want to help the world and Tories want all the cheap labour they can get their hands on.

However the Helsinki experience has shown that providing decent accommodation at reasonable prices or even subsidised rents is actually proving to be cheaper than a plethora of temporary accommodation and hostel style shelter, the bonus is that many of the people helped have managed to get their lives back together and are now working, earning and self supporting, for those with not managing situations, again it has been much easier to get the right help for these people when they are in a settled address rather than out on the streets, before you mention it this scheme is not designed nor intended to cater for an influx of jobless, homeless and not for immigrants at all until they have lived and worked in the country for a period, from memory I think that is either 3 or 5 years.

Please explain just how jobless migrants come to be highest priority, again our own fault, we should be returning or even stopping at the border any illegal migrants and allowing jobless migrants into the country is entirely the fault of our own governments.

Of course then we get the campaign to help refugees, you know these all male groups from Africa, yes there must be compassion and help for many, but we are our own worst enemy when it comes to dealing with unwanted, unneeded immigration.

None of this is the fault of the EU, as so many seem to believe.

[Hamble]

Simple, in or out of the EU we could and should have controlled immigration and we still can, but the problems remain in that Labour want to help the world and Tories want all the cheap labour they can get their hands on.

However the Helsinki experience has shown that providing decent accommodation at reasonable prices or even subsidised rents is actually proving to be cheaper than a plethora of temporary accommodation and hostel style shelter, the bonus is that many of the people helped have managed to get their lives back together and are now working, earning and self supporting, for those with not managing situations, again it has been much easier to get the right help for these people when they are in a settled address rather than out on the streets, before you mention it this scheme is not designed nor intended to cater for an influx of jobless, homeless and not for immigrants at all until they have lived and worked in the country for a period, from memory I think that is either 3 or 5 years.

Please explain just how jobless migrants come to be highest priority, again our own fault, we should be returning or even stopping at the border any illegal migrants and allowing jobless migrants into the country is entirely the fault of our own governments.

Of course then we get the campaign to help refugees, you know these all male groups from Africa, yes there must be compassion and help for many, but we are our own worst enemy when it comes to dealing with unwanted, unneeded immigration.

None of this is the fault of the EU, as so many seem to believe.

Free movement and Schengen is the fault of the EU when migrant family with children arrive without a job or means of support.
Their needs for accommodation schooling health and subsistence
have to be met as a priority.

The UK is one of the most favoured destinations I am proud to say
unfortunately it is too fast and big to accommodate continuing at such a rate.

One cannot 'manage' legal migration from within the EU.

I know it is hard for you to understand the point I try to make about EU migrants legally entitled to enter the UK without a job so I have found one example to illustrate this for you.

Quote
"3.A non-EU citizen having legally resided in Italy for ten years may apply for Italian citizenship and a EU citizen after four years. A foreigner with native-born Italian parents or grandparents who have lost their citizenship and therefore unable to pass citizenship on, is entitled to apply after three years of legal residency in Italy.

In short, obtaining Italian citizenship can bring significant benefits, for example:
•the ability to work, reside and study in Italy and in the other 27 EU countries (the UK, Germany, Sweden and etc.) without the need for a Visa;
•more possibilities to further career, as many jobs and other professional opportunities are offered first to EU citizens;
•access to medical benefits, including free healthcare;
•access to educational benefits, including potentially free high education;
•access to financial investment rights available only to EU citizens;
•easier to complete all necessary purchasing requirements for buying property in Italy;
•ability to transfer the citizenship (Italian and EU) to all children under 18 years old automatically."


http://www.giambronelaw.com/site/lib...talian-citizen