• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

A place to discuss party manifestos

Recommended Posts

So, the Labour party's manifesto has been leaked and thus mark's a good time for a thread to discuss the lies and disinformation that the various parties will peddle in an attempt to win your vote 

two pledges from the Labour Party that make ultimate sense to me are the scrapping of tuition fees and renationalisation of certain public services 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, One percent said:

So, the Labour party's manifesto has been leaked and thus mark's a good time for a thread to discuss the lies and disinformation that the various parties will peddle in an attempt to win your vote 

two pledges from the Labour Party that make ultimate sense to me are the scrapping of tuition fees and renationalisation of certain public services 

 

 

RedPin agrees that education should not have been turned into a loans market, to keep people off the dole, and get them to pay for it themselves, with the aid of banks.

RedPin also believes that all the selloffs of UK infrastructure was not a good thing. What a mess the expensive railways are, and the power utilities have all been bought up by French and Germans. I can't see it being reversed easily.

Although if I really wanted to join the Labour Party I would blame everything on Jews, and live in Islington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaked or "leaked"

Tories = some mumbling about brexit but no hard facts on how hard the brexit will be. foxhunting and raising income tax for the successful while doling out more money of your money to corrupt overseas regimes. Some guff about reducing immigration which she has absolutely no intention of doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrPin said:

RedPin agrees that education should not have been turned into a loans market, to keep people off the dole, and get them to pay for it themselves, with the aid of banks.

RedPin also believes that all the selloffs of UK infrastructure was not a good thing. What a mess the expensive railways are, and the power utilities have all been bought up by French and Germans. I can't see it being reversed easily.

Although if I really wanted to join the Labour Party I would blame everything on Jews, and live in Islington.

Yes, there is something very dark at the heart of the Labour Party. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spunko2010 said:

Leaked or "leaked"

Tories = some mumbling about brexit but no hard facts on how hard the brexit will be. foxhunting and raising income tax for the successful while doling out more money of your money to corrupt overseas regimes. Some guff about reducing immigration which she has absolutely no intention of doing. 

I thought at first you were another one having a go at my speeling there. xD

wait for the actual printed documents so that their lies can be seen in black and white.

I remember all those lib dem promises that were renaged on when they got into bed with the tories.  Unelectable from there on in imho and, indeed in reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the taxpayer funding useful subjects like science and engineering but if you want to do 'women's studies' and other such nonsense then pay for the fecker yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Idiocrat said:

I always find it interesting that the nationalisation of the UK's most important infrastructure is never proposed - namely land.

This!!!  In fact apart from strategic services like military, police, judiciary, and government my belief is that we should nationalise land ( including air space ) and then the people will have true democratic control. You could pretty much privatise everything else and revenue could largely be raised by taxing/renting out land to private users.

 

Those who used the  nation's resources most would get charged more rather than currently those who add more value

Edited by Long John Silver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Long John Silver said:

This!!!  In fact apart from strategic services like military, police, judiciary, and government my belief is that we should nationalise land ( including air space ) and then the people will have true democratic control. You could pretty much privatise everything else and revenue could largely be raised by taxing/renting out land to private users.

 

Those who used the  nation's resources most would get charged more rather than currently those who add more value

Yep, and I'm not sure if Labour don't propose it because they haven't thought of it or because they think it's too extreme/unpopular. I think it's probably the former - same old same old from Labour, thinking inside the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NTB said:

I'm fine with the taxpayer funding useful subjects like science and engineering but if you want to do 'women's studies' and other such nonsense then pay for the fecker yourself.

I'm not sure what to class amongst other nonsense. Music and the arts score highly with me, and should be funded, but not if you can't play the fucking instrument, or draw anything!O.o These are called "critics", and laugh at others' talents that they don't have themselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Idiocrat said:

I always find it interesting that the nationalisation of the UK's most important infrastructure is never proposed - namely land.

Pure Communism?  Would it not be wiser for only UK citizens to own land and property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrPin said:

RedPin also believes that all the selloffs of UK infrastructure was not a good thing. What a mess the expensive railways are, and the power utilities have all been bought up by French and Germans. I can't see it being reversed easily.

Funny, my memory of the nationalised utilities is of rolling electricity blackouts and a train service that was unpredictable to the point it was virtually useless.

Isn't it irrelevant as nationalising these things is very much against the directives of the EU, and any "soft Brexit"/EEA membersip will still leave EU competition law largely in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuition fees are scandalous to me. Especially since the rise to 9000. Having been the beneficiary of a grant I wouldn't liker to start with a debt mountain. It really sets you off on the wrong foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Funny, my memory of the nationalised utilities is of rolling electricity blackouts and a train service that was unpredictable to the point it was virtually useless.

Isn't it irrelevant as nationalising these things is very much against the directives of the EU, and any "soft Brexit"/EEA membersip will still leave EU competition law largely in place?

Ah you mean strikes?O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, montecristo said:

Pure Communism?  Would it not be wiser for only UK citizens to own land and property.

Less than 1% of the population own 70% of the land. We can start with land for quality housing from William the Conqueror's mates, and reversing the Enclosures for land that is not used for farming. We are an extremely wealthy country with plenty of land - there is no reason why every British family should not have a parcel of land they can live on or indeed rent out (eg.to farmers).

Obviously not gonna happen, but certainly agree on UK citizens only, and stopping foreign buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Green Devil said:

Tuition fees are scandalous to me. Especially since the rise to 9000. Having been the beneficiary of a grant I wouldn't liker to start with a debt mountain. It really sets you off on the wrong foot.

It strikes me that the ultimate beneficiary of university education is employers - therefore they should have bene the ones to pay.

Rather than tuition fees, I would have increase employer's national insurance by 3-4% on ALL employees that attended university, current and future. This could have been phased in over 3-4 years so would have not really ruffled any feathers. I would anticipate that this would a) raise enough o scrap university fees and b) discourage employers from just saying 'Graduates only' for any basic job.

At the same time I would have doubled employer's National Insurance for employing immigrants. This would help to cover the cost of the healthcare etc and maybe encourage employers to have a better look at the UK labour pool before taking the easy option.

 

Edited by Cunning Plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

It strikes me that the ultimate beneficiary of university education is employers - therefore they should have bene the ones to pay.

Rather than tuition fees, I would have increase employer's national insurance by 3-4% on ALL employees that attended university, current and future. This could have been phased in over 3-4 years so would have not really ruffled any feathers. I would anticipate that this would a) raise enough o scrap university fees and b) discourage employers from just saying 'Graduates only' for any basic job.

At the same time I would have doubled employer's National Insurance for employing immigrants. This would help to cover the cost of the healthcare etc and maybe encourage employers to have a better look at the UK labour pool before taking the easy option.

 

Yes, this went through my mind too.  All the risk is on the individual and most of the benefit the employer. There should ge a graduate tax on employers and the we will see which occupations actually require a graduate. 

Double or treble this tax for foreign workers so that they become more expensive for employers.  

Dosbodders, as we said on Karl's thread should be in charge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

It strikes me that the ultimate beneficiary of university education is employers - therefore they should have bene the ones to pay.

Rather than tuition fees, I would have increase employer's national insurance by 3-4% on ALL employees that attended university, current and future. This could have been phased in over 3-4 years so would have not really ruffled any feathers. I would anticipate that this would a) raise enough o scrap university fees and b) discourage employers from just saying 'Graduates only' for any basic job.

At the same time I would have doubled employer's National Insurance for employing immigrants. This would help to cover the cost of the healthcare etc and maybe encourage employers to have a better look at the UK labour pool before taking the easy option.

 

As a general rule, when you tax a thing you'll get less of it. For that reason I do not support high taxes on employment.

The trouble with modern university education is that for a significant proportion of it there is no apparent beneficiary.

Who benefits when a student is wasting their time pissing borrowed money (that they'll never pay back) up the wall to learn bollocks that is no use to them or employers?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpectrumFX said:

As a general rule, when you tax a thing you'll get less of it. For that reason I do not support high taxes on employment.

The trouble with modern university education is that for a significant proportion of it there is no apparent beneficiary.

Who benefits when a student is wasting their time pissing borrowed money (that they'll never pay back) up the wall to learn bollocks that is no use to them or employers?

 

 

 

True but who then decides what useful knowledge is?  It is harder than you think.  Remember that a lot of discoveries were by penicillin. 

Ive seen adult education largely go because government decided that they would only fund courses that led to employment.  Hence we then saw the rise in carp courses such as 'employability ' IT for idiots. Meanwhile, fancy learning something as a hobby, such as how to fix your car, a bit of flower arranging or even how to play bridge and you won't be able to find a course.

the impact of this is not very tangible but is significant. A large rump of practically useless people (I can turn my hand to a lot of things), isolated people with little in the way of hobbies and for some, these adult courses actually led them on to greater things 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

True but who then decides what useful knowledge is?  It is harder than you think.  Remember that a lot of discoveries were by penicillin. 

Ive seen adult education largely go because government decided that they would only fund courses that led to employment.  Hence we then saw the rise in carp courses such as 'employability ' IT for idiots. Meanwhile, fancy learning something as a hobby, such as how to fix your car, a bit of flower arranging or even how to play bridge and you won't be able to find a course.

the impact of this is not very tangible but is significant. A large rump of practically useless people (I can turn my hand to a lot of things), isolated people with little in the way of hobbies and for some, these adult courses actually led them on to greater things 

Couldn't agree more.

For me all this stuff leads back to the conclusion that for most things central planning doesn't work as well as leaving people to get on with stuff without government interference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

As a general rule, when you tax a thing you'll get less of it. For that reason I do not support high taxes on employment.

The trouble with modern university education is that for a significant proportion of it there is no apparent beneficiary.

Who benefits when a student is wasting their time pissing borrowed money (that they'll never pay back) up the wall to learn bollocks that is no use to them or employers?

 

 

 

I would agree about high taxation but this is a shifting of the burden. Faced with two equally applicants for a non degree job, I would be offering the graduate less money than the non graduate to offset their additional cost.

It would make people think if their degree was worthwhile as a useless degree will make you less employable.

I have also always thought that it was unfair to put it purely on current / future students and this is the best way I can think of to make it fair across all generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, montecristo said:

Pure Communism?  Would it not be wiser for only UK citizens to own land and property.

No, land and property are different. Property should be private as should the responsibility for its upkeep and improvement and subsequent risk/rewards on its value. Improvements to land can be private.

Land belongs to the people, as they are responsible for improving its value, accessibility, defence, facilities etc. Improvements of land's location value belongs to the collective as the collective pay for it.

 

 

Edited by Long John Silver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, One percent said:

Yes, this went through my mind too.  All the risk is on the individual and most of the benefit the employer. There should ge a graduate tax on employers and the we will see which occupations actually require a graduate. 

Double or treble this tax for foreign workers so that they become more expensive for employers.  

Dosbodders, as we said on Karl's thread should be in charge 

Tuition fees are a brilliant idea imho. Employers already pay for the benefits of a good education via higher salary. The beneficiary is the recipient of the salary.

If someone does gender studies and can't get a job that attracts a decent wage becuase they have no useful skills then tough, they should still pay for the cost of their decision. 

Edited by Long John Silver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Long John Silver said:

if soneone does gender studies and cant get a job that attracts a decent wage becuase they have no useful skills tgen tough, they should still pay for the cost of their decision. 

But they won't. They will never earn enough to pay it back. The thicko degrees are free. Get an engineering degree and you will have to pay for it.

This is arse about face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By OurDayWillCome
      What do the dosbods massive make of this stinking pile of shit:
      https://www.respectwords.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Reporting-on-Migration-and-Minorities..pdf
    • By Alonso Quijano
      Following on from comment in the World Cup thread, it would be interesting to see and collect the views of Great Britain, its people, politicians, culture, achievements, direction... as seen from afar.
      Are we revered, a laughing stock or just meh? Is Rule Britannia afloat, listing or sinking below the waves?
      Do other nations have a Health Service that is so policised and integral to political campaigns?
      Are other nations proud and protective of their culture or ashamed of it?
    • By swiss_democracy_for_all
      Are the Russians a bit slow off the mark? Or don’t care?  Surely they must realize that all they need to do is feed some of the money into UK political parties coffers like (allegedly) some other influential rich people from a sandy country; articles like this won’t even appear on the So-Called BBC after that......
      http://www.bbc.com/news/business-44191682
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.