General Election 2019 thread

[goatwack]

Quite liking our pal Rishi's slogan(s) - they're so barcode-wavingly relatable! Mr. coup-l himself!


Restore Trust We Betrayed.
Rebuild the Economy We Tanked.
Reunite the Country We Helped Divide.

Build Back Better.


NotReady4Rishi.com

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Funny how these people discover a conscience AFTER they've fed from the trough. Kinda like a wealthy affiliate proclaiming that gambling is all wrong....

Well he grew up poor but ambitious, excelled academically, landed a high paying job in the city, earned a bunch of money (he was a millionaire in his twenties) and now in his mid-thirties he's already spent years fighting wealth inequality.

At what point exactly did you want him to work everything out and decide what his life's work should be, when he was still in the womb?

 

[dunover]

Well he grew up poor but ambitious, excelled academically, landed a high paying job in the city, earned a bunch of money (he was a millionaire in his twenties) and now in his mid-thirties he's already spent years fighting wealth inequality.

At what point exactly did you want him to work everything out and decide what his life's work should be, when he was still in the womb?

So a bit like one of those magnanimous, charitable multi-millionaire New Labour ministers then? Easy to preach when one's head is well below the parapet, isn't it? If he feels that guilty, perhaps he should donate his fortune to worthwhile causes?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So a bit like one of those magnanimous, charitable multi-millionaire New Labour ministers then? Easy to preach when one's head is well below the parapet, isn't it? If he feels that guilty, perhaps he should donate his fortune to worthwhile causes?

He's using his 'fortune' to fund his fight against wealth inequality, his 'fortune' is about £5m, Rishi Sunak and his wife are worth around £750m. Rishi Sunak is the one who has overseen tax rises as, y'know, the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer, that now mean ordinary working people are enduring the highest tax burden since the 1940s, Gary is openly advocating for a tax system that would see him pay more tax.

What he's 'preaching' is that the super-wealthy should pay more tax, to relieve the tax burden on ordinary working people, what a bastard eh?

Lest we forget that the Tories syphoned FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION POUNDS into the pockets of the rich during Covid (and how many tens of billions more to their mates with dodgy PPE contracts?), and have expressed zero interest in getting any of it back.

But yeah, the working class guy made good who earned a chunk of cash and has decided to spend it dedicating his life to fighting wealth inequality is the bad guy.

 

[dunover]

He's using his 'fortune' to fund his fight against wealth inequality, his 'fortune' is about £5m, Rishi Sunak and his wife are worth around £750m. Rishi Sunak is the one who has overseen tax rises as, y'know, the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer, that now mean ordinary working people are enduring the highest tax burden since the 1940s, Gary is openly advocating for a tax system that would see him pay more tax.

What he's 'preaching' is that the super-wealthy should pay more tax, to relieve the tax burden on ordinary working people, what a bastard eh?

Lest we forget that the Tories syphoned FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION POUNDS into the pockets of the rich during Covid (and how many tens of billions more to their mates with dodgy PPE contracts?), and have expressed zero interest in getting any of it back.

But yeah, the working class guy made good who earned a chunk of cash and has decided to spend it dedicating his life to fighting wealth inequality is the bad guy.

So how much of that went into the pockets of millions of workers who were furloughed then, as you would have us all believe the utter BS that it was exlusively for the rich? So workers getting 80% of their pay for 9 months were all 'rich' people? Your assertion about 'working poor' etc. cannot be right, as it seems that you classify anyone with event he most basic employment as 'rich' then? Which is it?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So how much of that went into the pockets of millions of workers who were furloughed then, as you would have us all believe the utter BS that it was exlusively for the rich? So workers getting 80% of their pay for 9 months were all 'rich' people? Your assertion about 'working poor' etc. cannot be right, as it seems that you classify anyone with event he most basic employment as 'rich' then? Which is it?

I scarcely have any idea what you're even talking about at this point, the concepts in play here are pretty simple.

The furlough money wasn't 'given' to the furloughed workers insofar as they didn't pocket it, it went through them and ended up in the pockets of the rich.

Furlough was the right thing to do, not making any effort to get any of the £450bn back from the rich who eventually got to keep nearly all of it is a terrible mistake.

For the vast majority of furloughed workers, the vast majority of their furlough payments went on essential expenditures such as rent, mortgages, bills, shopping etc (expenses that never went away during Covid), i.e. the money went to the wealthy who own all that stuff.

Now in normal times this isn't so bad because money flows around in a circle, the difference here is all the money was being created as new government debt, and then being directed, almost exclusively, into the pockets of the rich.

I don't understand which part of this you're finding confusing. The Covid furlough scheme was, in many ways, a rerun of quantitative easing, Gary saw how that played out first time around, and predicted exactly how it would play out second time around - and he was right.

 

[Webzcas]

The furlough money wasn't 'given' to the furloughed workers insofar as they didn't pocket it, it went through them and ended up in the pockets of the rich.

To be able to receive Furlough, the business in question making and receiving said furlough payment had to be in a position whereby they were in essence not trading. This is completely different to the Pandemic grants that were being thrown around.

So in short, the business and employer of the furloughed staff did not 'trouser' said furlough payment.

 

[dunover]

I scarcely have any idea what you're even talking about at this point, the concepts in play here are pretty simple.

The furlough money wasn't 'given' to the furloughed workers insofar as they didn't pocket it, it went through them and ended up in the pockets of the rich.

Furlough was the right thing to do, not making any effort to get any of the £450bn back from the rich who eventually got to keep nearly all of it is a terrible mistake.

For the vast majority of furloughed workers, the vast majority of their furlough payments went on essential expenditures such as rent, mortgages, bills, shopping etc (expenses that never went away during Covid), i.e. the money went to the wealthy who own all that stuff.

Now in normal times this isn't so bad because money flows around in a circle, the difference here is all the money was being created as new government debt, and then being directed, almost exclusively, into the pockets of the rich.

I don't understand which part of this you're finding confusing. The Covid furlough scheme was, in many ways, a rerun of quantitative easing, Gary saw how that played out first time around, and predicted exactly how it would play out second time around - and he was right.

And also contributed to a whopping 125bn in extra savings by er... those same workers. I cannot believe you use this ridiculous circular argument. You can say exactly the same about 'normal' wages and money for which most workers will spend 80% of their income on essentials like you named above. With the sweeping and precise (lol) phrase 'the money went to the wealthy who own all that stuff'. So none of it went to small shops, local authority or housing association rents? Local takeaways, garages etc?

You need reminding we live in a capitalist society and are relatively wealthy because of it. So was this furlough cash issued with the express instruction it must not end up in the hands of any capitalist pigs? So don't spend it in big chain supermarkets. Don't pay your rent if it's a private landlord. Don't pay your mortgage as there's inevitably a shareholder-owned finance house behind it?

All the furlough did was try to maintain meeting the basic living costs of workers. The people at the end of the chain of some expenditure were the same as ever, so I'm really struggling to see any point to your rantings here. Had that money been earned naturally and covid not happened, everything would have been the same as usual anyway. Your blind dogma is not only illogical, it's simply ludicrous.

Mind you, it's hard to debate with someone who the other day claimed pensioners were all racists. You've managed to maintain your low standards again here. Or are these not your standards, but your latest anti-govt. hero's??

 

[interlog]

It is also worth remembering that the furlough scheme wasn't exclusive to the UK. Other countries had similar schemes in operation to support those that couldn't work because of the Covid lockdowns.

Having watched that video, I still don't get where the video maker is coming from in terms of blaming the super rich because they didn't spend as much as they usually would during the pandemic. They couldn't for a start, just as others that did work couldn't either. Even Chopley said that he spent less during the Covid lockdowns than usual. Should he (and me for that matter) therefore give that money we didn't spent back in the form of tax increases, because that is what the maker of that video is alluding.

 

[pinnit2014]

It's a good job Gary had his crisis of conscience when he made his millions, rather than before.

That would have meant, you know, less millions.

 

[goatwack]

Just another Socialist quack who claims to come from humble beginnings and pass themselves off as a Robin Hood type, whilst having exploited the system for his own gain - all the while becoming an Investment Banker at 22 sounding like an extra from Lock, Stock.

Again, the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is all too evident among these types, and can be put into the Gary Lineker/ Lily Allen pile of justice and truth, whilst proclaiming anyone richer than them worthy of being put down a peg or two.

Because, you know, it's better everyone have a little something, so long as it's not more than thy neighbour. Wouldn't surprise me if the guy's found out to be a fraud in a few years, not that it would shock me to the core

*Gary, not Pinnit

 

[pinnit2014]

Just another Socialist quack who claims to come from humble beginnings and pass themselves off as a Robin Hood type, whilst having exploited the system for his own gain - all the while becoming an Investment Banker at 22 sounding like an extra from Lock, Stock.

Again, the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is all too evident among these types, and can be put into the Gary Lineker/ Lily Allen pile of justice and truth, whilst proclaiming anyone richer than them worthy of being put down a peg or two.

Because, you know, it's better everyone have a little something, so long as it's not more than thy neighbour. Wouldn't surprise me if the guy's found out to be a fraud in a few years, not that it would shock me to the core

*Gary, not Pinnit

It's cool man, i'm a fraud - i have the self-awareness and the ankle monitor to prove it

 

[mcgameboy]

Funny how these people discover a conscience AFTER they've fed from the trough. Kinda like a wealthy affiliate proclaiming that gambling is all wrong....

At least your "epiphany" came late rather than never mate

 

[ChopleyIOM]

OK let's try a different approach to this, starting from a position we all seem to agree on - namely that the UK government borrowed £450bn during Covid. This was brand new money created by the Bank of England, which then lent it to the government, and the government then took it on as debt, debt which it now says is the reason taxes are so high, decent pay rises for public sector workers can't be afforded, and it's having to reign in public spending as a whole. (So for example, all those NHS workers we clapped for are being told that in real terms, they're looking at a hefty pay cut this year.)

£450bn works out to £11,000 for every adult in the country. So you, and anyone you know who's over the age of 18, had £11,000 of government debt created in their names.

So this then leads on to the next question, are you £11,000 better off than you were before Covid? Let's say there's you and a partner, and three family members or friends - are you collectively £55,000 better off than you were before Covid? Because £55,000 of debt was definitely added onto the government's books on your behalf.

And if those five people are not £55,000 better off, where did that money end up? Whose bank accounts did that £55,000 eventually end up in?

Remember we're talking specifically about newly printed government Covid money and its disbursement, in me and interlog's cases for example, we just carried on working and switched to working from home. Our employers carried on employing us and paying our wages, and we carried on doing our jobs for them, so we sit outside this equation, despite the fact that we may personally have done alright financially throughout Covid. (Same income, lower expenses and spending.)

It is true that a lot of money was saved by individuals over Covid, but this saving was generally pooled by those who were fortunate enough to pivot to working from home and maintain their full incomes, furloughed workers only received 80% of their incomes, so whilst their discretionary spending may have been lower, how many of them really had more than 20% of their wages as 'spends' every month prior to Covid.

So as the old cliché says, follow the money. £11,000 of money was printed and added to the government's debt for every adult in the UK, if you don't have that £11,000, then someone else does.

If you're an ordinary working person in the UK, you're currently burdened with the highest individual tax rates since the 1940s. The people who ultimately trousered that £450bn? They made off like bandits with it.

 

[interlog]

OK let's try a different approach to this, starting from a position we all seem to agree on - namely that the UK government borrowed £450bn during Covid. This was brand new money created by the Bank of England, which then lent it to the government, and the government then took it on as debt, debt which it now says is the reason taxes are so high, decent pay rises for public sector workers can't be afforded, and it's having to reign in public spending as a whole. (So for example, all those NHS workers we clapped for are being told that in real terms, they're looking at a hefty pay cut this year.)

£450bn works out to £11,000 for every adult in the country. So you, and anyone you know who's over the age of 18, had £11,000 of government debt created in their names.

So this then leads on to the next question, are you £11,000 better off than you were before Covid? Let's say there's you and a partner, and three family members or friends - are you collectively £55,000 better off than you were before Covid? Because £55,000 of debt was definitely added onto the government's books on your behalf.

And if those five people are not £55,000 better off, where did that money end up? Whose bank accounts did that £55,000 eventually end up in?

Remember we're talking specifically about newly printed government Covid money and its disbursement, in me and interlog's cases for example, we just carried on working and switched to working from home. Our employers carried on employing us and paying our wages, and we carried on doing our jobs for them, so we sit outside this equation, despite the fact that we may personally have done alright financially throughout Covid. (Same income, lower expenses and spending.)

It is true that a lot of money was saved by individuals over Covid, but this saving was generally pooled by those who were fortunate enough to pivot to working from home and maintain their full incomes, furloughed workers only received 80% of their incomes, so whilst their discretionary spending may have been lower, how many of them really had more than 20% of their wages as 'spends' every month prior to Covid.

So as the old cliché says, follow the money. £11,000 of money was printed and added to the government's debt for every adult in the UK, if you don't have that £11,000, then someone else does.

If you're an ordinary working person in the UK, you're currently burdened with the highest individual tax rates since the 1940s. The people who ultimately trousered that £450bn? They made off like bandits with it.

View attachment 169952

£11,000 per person is correct on average. But that does not mean that each person would get that. My understanding of it is that the Government paid 80% of a person's wage (via the Company) if they couldn't work. So if somebody earns £30,000 per year, that person would have gotten £24,000

So, no, I am still not getting your reasoning unless my understanding of this whole furlough scheme has been totally wrong.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

£11,000 per person is correct on average. But that does not mean that each person would get that. My understanding of it is that the Government paid 80% of a person's wage (via the Company) if they couldn't work. So if somebody earns £30,000 per year, that person would have gotten £24,000

So, no, I am still not getting your reasoning unless my understanding of this whole furlough scheme has been totally wrong.

You're still missing the last stage of the process interlog, where does the money end up.

If a furloughed worker received £1600 per month, but £800 of it went on rent, £300 of it went on shopping, £100 of it went on fuel, £150 of it went on energy bills and £250 of it went on other expenses, they actually got to keep precisely zero of that £1600. It's not like they're sticking that £1600 per month into the bank, but the £1600 still ended up somewhere.

Let's forget about everything else for now and just focus on the rent. In simple terms, the government created £800 of debt, and passed it through that person, straight into the pocket of a landlord, every single month for as long as furlough lasted.

Multiply that out across the UK for every single person who paid their rent using furlough money, tens of billions pounds being created as new government debt, and then being siphoned straight into the pockets of (often very wealthy) landlords.

What Gary is saying is that these very wealthy people, who did very well out of Covid, should be paying a bit more tax to relieve the burden on average workers - it's not exactly calling for a Communist revolution, is it?

If taxes were low overall at the moment you could argue it's all good, (I wouldn't but someone could try to make that case), but when your average worker is paying the highest rates of tax since the 1940s, how is it that the wealthy and super-wealthy get to trouser £450bn of newly created government debt, and pay far lower rates of tax than Mr Average Joe does?

And remember Mr Average Joe is not only paying the highest rates of tax for nearly 100 years, he's also being told he can't have a decent pay rise (how many people are getting 9% pay rises this year?.....), that public services are shit because there's no money to pay for them, that his energy bills are going to be the highest they've ever been (and getting higher), and also that he just has to put up with inflation running at 9% and it costing £100 or more to fill up his car.

Printing £450bn of new money is an extremely inflationary measure, so it's like a double whammy for the folks who didn't get to keep any of it.

 

[mack341]

Sorry guys could be the heat melting my brain but

There has been a bit of wealth transfer going on, inadvertently to save argument, to the elite billionaire class, buying up shares at low prices from plummeting stock markets [which then recovered] and tech shares and big pharma booming.

On top of the govt splashing money out on the tracking app, [40 billion?] masses of PPE that is being destroyed, business 'loans' which we probably won't see back but written off. £70 billion went on the furlough scheme apparently.

Hopefully the covid reviews will explain how the £450b was spent, or where it went.

 

[goatwack]

The hostile takeover edges ever closer to completion, sorry, 'leadership race', as Sunak's running away with it.

So well prepared was he, but then he'd had a six-month head-start, whilst his opponents bemusedly flail around in panic. I mean, just look at the logo for God's sake, he probably spent a few grand on that alone!



And then there were eight!

Though looking at that list, the only viable challengers from that lot amount to Hunt, Mordaunt & Truss, so it's safe to assume 'it's in the bag'



So slick is Fishy Rishy's campaign trail that even journalists find their mics 'cutting out' during terse Q&As, almost as if to railroad the great man into no.10 without incident.

Personally, I'm still reeling from Shapp's withdrawal (oh matron) but have come to accept the natural order of things, so it'll be interesting to see voters' reaction to this staged production in the coming years.

In the meantime, I'll leave everyone with this, again. Are you ready for Rishi? Yes we are!

 

[slot_zombie]

Is there no way at all that we could bring back Maggie via DNA cloning? Just asking.

 

[mack341]

Will Boris loyalists vote for Rishi?

If we're now in a bit of a financial disaster zone, then how does Rish get away with having presided over it or prove he's the right man to get us out.

Penny Mordaunt could be the winner, I mean how has she got this far despite being anonymous [compared to truss say] for the last 3-4 years, and there is previous in David Cameron coming out of nowhere, not sure anyone outside of the tory party knew about him.

Then again she's not married, don't think we've ever had a single, not even in a relationship, PM

 

[goatwack]

Is there no way at all that we could bring back Maggie via DNA cloning? Just asking.

Not yet, but we can wheel out Meryl Streep to don her Thatcher hat and play the part? At least until John Major prodigally returns

 

[Kroffe]

Not yet, but we can wheel out Meryl Streep to don her Thatcher hat and play the part? At least until John Major prodigally returns

Almost everybody loves Thatcher.

 

[TheAddict]

Sorry guys could be the heat melting my brain but

There has been a bit of wealth transfer going on, inadvertently to save argument, to the elite billionaire class, buying up shares at low prices from plummeting stock markets [which then recovered] and tech shares and big pharma booming.

On top of the govt splashing money out on the tracking app, [40 billion?] masses of PPE that is being destroyed, business 'loans' which we probably won't see back but written off. £70 billion went on the furlough scheme apparently.

Hopefully the covid reviews will explain how the £450b was spent, or where it went.

ffs, Mack. Stop making so much sense.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

My pick would be Penny Mordaunt. I think she is also the most popular amongst the Tory membership.

If the Tories are listening and want a real shot at winning the next election then they have to select Penny.

 

[Webzcas]

From what I see on Twitter, the Conservative Party Membership are most certainly not 'Ready for Rishi' - also based on current polling, if Rishi was to get into number 10, the country most certainly are not 'Ready for Rishi'.

However, it appears the parliamentary conservative party are 'Ready for Rishi'. What are the chances that they will engineer by way of 'lending' votes, so the membership have to vote for Rishi or a deeply unpopular candidate with the membership, ala that lovely man Jeremy Hunt?

I had to be very careful there as my fingers nearly didn't hit the 'H' key when typing his name!