- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 4268 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
819 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 80531
I think it's time for a new Corbyn thread.
The previous thread (>>73072) is reaching critical mass. In combination with the original thread (>>64990) we've had over 4,700 posts on Dear Leader since August last year. That's a lot of shitposting. Keep up the good work, lads.
|>>|| No. 81902
It's possible to miss obvious things because they're obvious, and you essentially just assume you've gotten it right.
t. Serial 2016-dater.
|>>|| No. 81903
He likes to remind us that he's the leader all the time. He's not evading tax, since his salary and pension are both PAYE and therefore taxed at source.
|>>|| No. 81904
Tax evasion is a bad thing of course but its an issue for the HMRC not that passive aggressive couple over the road from me to tut at and enforce with parish justice.
Anyway we're not really a bad nation are we. Certainly it has its problems but still better than any of the other circuses.
So stupid Norway brought in a system where you are emailed the details of anyone who asks about your tax returns (aside from the press of course).
|>>|| No. 81905
>>81903 taxed at source.
Doesn't really count with multiple sources of income, though, does it? (How do you tell which source contributes to the thresholds?)
|>>|| No. 81906
You'd be surprised, lottery winners who publicly declare are harassed for years with begging requests.
Anti-capitalist are considered a very real threat in some circles. The same way people who work in animal research labs are afraid of being attacked by militant vegans, the banking sector is terrified that a bunch of black bloc will turn up in a van and kidnap them. You can call it paranoid if you like, but the aggressive rhetoric is undeniably constantly present in the public consciousness, and in some circles considered virtuous, and there are people who's day job is to consider it a credible threat.
|>>|| No. 81907
Kidnap for ransom is a massive risk for the super-rich and their families.
|>>|| No. 81908
What I think is most concerning about his tax return is that he's only received £78 in interest, so he must have absolutely no investments and hardly any savings.
|>>|| No. 81909
Savings rates are so pathetically low that you could easily get that little on a decent slush fund. He probably doesn't have investments because he's a pensioner and has likely already cashed them in for an annuity. Either that, or he joined the public sector back when the pensions were worth something and didn't bother with them
|>>|| No. 81910
When you have multiple PAYE sources, HMRC send them each a coding notice. They'll either split the allowances or issue a zero allowance code. In Jezza's case they probably just told the pension to deduct at the higher rate (D0).
|>>|| No. 81911
>but its an issue for the HMRC not that passive aggressive couple over the road from me to tut at and enforce with parish justice.
I think the idea is that the couple across the road call up HMRC and ask how a man earning £50,000 a year buys a superyacht.
|>>|| No. 81913
Given the choice between Norway and Britain, I would pick Norway. Shame I'm not Norwegian.
|>>|| No. 81914
I realise you probably have never met anyone interesting enough that these were legitimate concerns but some of us have a broader life experience.
|>>|| No. 81915
AIUI, the tendency is for HMRC to do a code split for low earners, and a rate code otherwise. If it looks like neither source of income will put you above the allowance they'll do a split, e.g. if you're doing casual work while on the dole (below 16 hours) they'll do something like 300L to DWP and 800L to the employer. If one source is going to put you over your allowance, they'll allocate the allowance to that issue a rate code to everything else. BR for basic, D0 for higher, D1 for additional.
Apparently they're now claiming that his additional payment for being leader is included in the pension figure, since he decided it amounted to a "state benefit". When I worked at HMRC, "benefit" for that purpose meant social security benefits. If that's the money, then he's potentially mis-declared it, though not necessarily underpaid. It's almost certainly not his pension as an MP, because while he's old enough to take it IIRC the scheme rules specifically prohibit members from taking their payment while they're still sitting.
An interesting side-note is that the Parliamentary pension scheme that Corbyn would be part of is final-salary, and as leader of the opposition I think he might receive the pension based on the combined figure. It's possible that he is mulling leaving, but is clinging on until at least April so he can rack up the amount that counts for the final salary part. He's been in the House for almost 40 years so has probably racked up maximum entitlement anyway.
|>>|| No. 81916
I don't really see why I should care for their fear in the first place.
I mean, if just one porky pays his fucking taxes, and in turn 5 less disabled people are sanctioned to death, even if a good bit of his family are kidnapped and beheaded by yobs we're still up in terms of lives saved.
|>>|| No. 81917
>the banking sector is terrified that a bunch of black bloc will turn up in a van and kidnap them.
>there are people who's day job is to consider it a credible threat.
As an armchair anarchylad, this only serves to make me feel rather vindicated.
|>>|| No. 81919
Yeah, his erroneous usage of "who's" instead of "whose" put me off too.
|>>|| No. 81920
Maybe they should have thought about that before becoming greedy bastards?
|>>|| No. 81922
What about their kids? Did they choose to be the son or daughter of a multi-millionaire? Do they deserve to be abducted by Serbian gangsters because their dad owns an oilfield or a pharmaceutical company?
|>>|| No. 81923
No more than the children of single parents or poor families deserve to do less well in life than their better-off peers.
|>>|| No. 81924
The clusterfuck surrounding the Class 4 NICs is getting just painful to watch. In the past we've had them struggling to properly oppose things, and then something comes up that they could really get behind and they come out opposing it.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives potentially have their majority at risk with twelve police forces having submitted at least one file to the CPS over election expenses, and another five still looking into the matter. That means potentiallly dozens of by-elections, which will of course be unwinnable with Jezza in charge.
|>>|| No. 81925
It was easily the worst performance I've ever seen at PMQs. The Tories have had an absolutely shocking week, staggering from cockup to scandal. A decent opposition would have torn them to pieces. The PM should have left the house looking ashen-faced, but she was laughing and joking; the Labour backbenches looked utterly funereal.
Peston quoted a senior Tory describing Corbyn's performance as "that moment in seal culling when you look away". You know it's come to something when the Tories are moving from derision to pity. Yvette Cooper landed the best blow from the Labour benches, but the SNP made the official opposition look like amateurs.
It's an utterly depressing state of affairs, regardless of your party affiliation. We're entering the most turbulent political period in living memory without any effective opposition. We're lacking an essential part of a functioning parliamentary democracy at a time when we need it most. Theresa May is a complete shitshow, but she looks like a political genius by comparison.
|>>|| No. 81929
I am right wing. Hard right wing. Somewhere betwen UKIp and the Tories depending on what you're asking about.
Labour's lack of opposition is incredibly frustrating. You cannot have a functioning government if the only faction that holds it to account is itself.
Aside from that, the Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democrats, the Scottish -turn''Party live up to their name but fuck it up regardless, and thus we're essentially stuck with a government of majority 12 or so that may as well be 120. I ike Theresa May. I think she's genreally pointing in the right direction. I was a bit confused and worried by the 'U'turn' on NICs. I thought it was highly justifiable and generally a good ironing of tax policy, but it was shot down because it faced fire in the face of no political opposition whatsoever other than talk radio. It made her look weak and incompetent.
Anyway, there's my splurge.
|>>|| No. 81932
>the Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democrats
I've seen this written before but it seems so nonsensical. Is it just a Brexit thing?
|>>|| No. 81945
A hard-left plot by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn to seize permanent control of the Labour party and consolidate their power by formally joining forces with the super-union Unite can be revealed by the Observer.
The plans, described on Saturday by Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson as “entryism” and a covert attempt by a leftwing faction to take over the party, were spelled out in detail by Jon Lansman, the founder of the grassroots organisation Momentum, who was secretly recorded addressing supporters at a meeting of a new branch of the organisation in Richmond, south London, on 1 March.
On the tape, obtained by the Observer, Lansman issues a call to arms to Momentum supporters, saying they need to make sure the left is far better represented in key positions at all levels of the party so they have control over the levers of power when Corbyn departs and the succession is decided.
Most controversially, Lansman says that if his ally Len McCluskey secures re-election as general secretary of Unite in an internal election next month, the super-union will then link directly to Momentum by formally affiliating to it, in what critics fear would amount to a massive shift of power and financial resources to the pro-Corbyn left.
Announcing what he implies is a done deal with McCluskey, Lansman tells the audience: “Assuming that Len McCluskey wins the general secretaryship, which I think he will, Unite will affiliate to Momentum and will fully participate in Momentum, as will the CWU [the Communications Workers’ Union].”
The extent to which the left is mobilising behind the scenes and looking to Unite to back it at national and constituency levels will greatly alarm Labour moderates. Lansman spells out how Momentum currently lacks money. His mention of a link-up with Unite will invite inevitable speculation that the country’s biggest union – and Labour’s largest donor – is preparing to give money, as well as organisational support, to Momentum, too.
News of the plans will also alarm the many Labour MPs who sought to oust Corbyn in a coup last summer, and who now worry that leftwing activists and some Unite insiders are laying plans to deselect them in a mass purge before the next election.
|>>|| No. 81949
Struggling to see how a faction of a political party expressing a commitment to increasing their influence over said party is news.
|>>|| No. 81951
There used to be a line in the US about how it seemed like the DNC leadership rather exercise full control over the Democratic party than the country. In other words – they rather lose a national election than allow someone from outside their clique to represent the party.
This is my only explanation for what Corbyn’s lot is doing to my party: it seems vitally important to them to take over the party apparatus in toto, even if that means national politics becomes something of an externality.
In short: national politics is suffering for it. There's no fucking opposition.
|>>|| No. 81952
I think we're overdoing the "tacky 1980s re-run" shtick
The same is true of those who tried to coup Corbyn. Indeed, it's the iron law of institutions.
Then again, I kind of like the idea of the total implosion of either major party. In the short term national politics suffers, but in the long term it could be supremely destabilizing depending on what rises from the ashes - and since we were until very recently in an ugly equilibrium state, destabilization is god.
|>>|| No. 81953
SHOCKER! PARTY FOUNDED BY UNIONS WANTS TO WORK WITH UNIONS!
The fuck is this drivel?
Your party, aye? At what point does one get to even say that?
|>>|| No. 81955
>In short: national politics is suffering for it. There's no fucking opposition.
This reflexive statement is starting to grate me because it is such a simplified assessment of how political society operates. The fact that the government has just performed a u-turn should give a clear indication that there is a very real opposition both in the papers and in the Conservative party itself.
The system is adaptable and in the long-run either the Liberal Democrats will replace Labour or the Tories will splinter given big-tent politics becomes trivial without an electoral threat. I doubt Theresa May can keep up her balancing act until the next election so I predict some level of chaos will soon envelop everything.
>The fuck is this drivel?
It has more significance for the upcoming Unite elections. McCluskey has a fair chance of losing to the centre-orientated Coyne who this story will no doubt help given his base is dissatisfied moderates in the West Midlands.
The funny thing is McCluskey isn't considered to have been a Corbynite in the leadership election but its just how things have now fallen for him. The story has little national significance given Unite's influence pales in comparison to GMB but almost seems to have been planted to make sure McCluskey gets booted out. Good.
|>>|| No. 81956
>The fact that the government has just performed a u-turn should give a clear indication that there is a very real opposition both in the papers and in the Conservative party itself.
Not really. There was just enough disquiet in the ranks to risk the budget being defeated. That's it. The occasional minor revolt on a matter that isn't representative of the big picture is not "very real opposition". The papers are irrelevant. All they could do would be to persuade the voters to vote for someone else, but who are they going to vote for? Certainly not any party that poses a threat to the government.
The simple fact is that there is no real opposition. End of story.
|>>|| No. 81957
>All they could do would be to persuade the voters to vote for someone else, but who are they going to vote for? Certainly not any party that poses a threat to the government.
The same was true of Miliband though.
If we were more open about the Kinnock effect then Labour would stop losing elections by putting funny looking, funny sounding mongs in positions of power.
|>>|| No. 81958
>The same was true of Miliband though.
It really wasn't, lad. Almost two years into the Parliament, and Labour's poll ratings are worse than when they went in. Not even Special Ed managed to pull off that sort of disaster.
|>>|| No. 81959
The polls can say as they please, he never posed a threat to the government because he was a fucking weirdo that nobody could trust to run down to the shops for some crisps, let alone run the country.
Now obviously you want to be polling well so that when a quasi normal person eventually comes along (or the Tories pick a freak of their own) you win, so Ed did better than Corbyn in that respect, but at the end of the day he was never a threat in and of himself.
|>>|| No. 81961
I already stated why tanking in the polls isn't a good thing - you fuck over the next guy.
But if you're going to keep sticking freaks in the captain's seat, you're always going to lose elections. Sure, you'll buoy in the middle of the parliamentary term most of the time (Christ even Foot managed that) - but then people will remember you're seriously proposing a ginger, le failure to consume sandwich man or the allotment of doom in number 10 (in an alliance with the SNP to kill your kids!) and they'll balk.
|>>|| No. 81962
We're in a slightly weird moment. The Tories have a wafer-thin majority, but they're supremely confident about the next election. Tory backbenchers feel secure enough to rebel, but the majority is small enough for their rebellion to matter. With Brexitgeddon in full play, the whips have bigger things to worry about than Phil Hammond's ego.
As we approach the next election, the whips are going to crack down on any hint of poor discipline; under threat of reselection, the back benches will step into line. After the next election, we're essentially guaranteed a large Tory majority, which could play out in any number of ways. May could unleash whatever ideology she's been keeping a secret and become the next Thatcher; conversely, she could use the security of a large majority to spurn the Daily Mail and make a play for the middle ground. The back benches could be cowed into submission by the sheer size of the majority, or a genuine rift could open up within the party, especially if Brexit doesn't go smoothly.
What's worrying is that Labour don't figure into any of it. There's no plausible outcome that would make Labour or the Lib Dems remotely relevant in this parliament or the next. For the foreseeable future, we're living in a one-party state; the only politics that matter are the internal politics of the Conservative party and the politics of Brexit. If May can avoid a disastrous end to the Article 50 process, then she has almost unbridled power for the next eight years.
|>>|| No. 81966
What were you expecting him to say? "Martin was a cunt and I'm glad he's dead"?
I can see why he would want one of his mates in Gorton. That's a job for life for someone.
|>>|| No. 81967
When a not insignificant number of people believe you're a terrorist sympathiser it's probably best not to say anything at all.
|>>|| No. 81968
He's not retiring to the country with a seven figure payoff and two Chelsea Tractors. He's dead. Not saying anything isn't really am option, lad.
|>>|| No. 81969
He's referring to Corbyn, who, unfortunately for some, is still very much alive.
|>>|| No. 81971
>He's dead. Not saying anything isn't really am option, lad.
It's Martin McGuinness. He's hardly a world leader like Nelson Mandela or Fidel Castro.
|>>|| No. 81973
You are aware that, much to Marty's displeasure, the country he was deputy first minister of was part of the UK?
|>>|| No. 81975
>That's a job for life for someone.
I guess that's why Labour went for an all Asian shortlist. Another diversity box ticked.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]