The British Donald Trump

[lesliedellow]

We would appear to have our very own Donald Trump, whose skin is as thin as tissue paper.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37208527

If calling a politician a liar makes somebody a threat to democracy, I guess 99.99% of the British population are a threat to democracy.

 

[LionL]

I may have misunderstood but you seem to be comparing John McDonell, the left-winger, to Donald Trump, the right-winger because of an article in which he condemns ultra-rich tax exiles?

I don't get your logic, can you please explain? Maybe I've misunderstood...?

 

[Oafman]

A weird comparison Leslie, please explain

 

[lesliedellow]

I may have misunderstood but you seem to be comparing John McDonell, the left-winger, to Donald Trump, the right-winger because of an article in which he condemns ultra-rich tax exiles?

I don't get your logic, can you please explain? Maybe I've misunderstood...?

Richard Branson may be rich, but he is not a tax exile. In any case that is not what the post is about. McDonell threw a wobbly, called Branson a threat to democracy, and wants him stripped of his knighthood, all because Branson had the temerity to call his chum a liar. I mean, who has ever heard of politicians of lying? On the face of it, Branson had reason to call Corbyn a liar.

At best McDonell's reaction was way over the top. I mean - a threat to democracy. As if politicians were all lilly white.

 

[Oafman]

Richard Branson may be rich, but he is not a tax exile.

I’ve been a tax exile for seven years, says Branson

McDonell threw a wobbly, called Branson a threat to democracy, and wants him stripped of his knighthood, all because Branson had the temerity to call his chum a liar. I mean, who has ever heard of politicians of lying? On the face of it, Branson had reason to call Corbyn a liar.

At best McDonell's reaction was way over the top. I mean - a threat to democracy. As if politicians were all lilly white.

If someone does very well from the platform provided by our society, and then moves their income to a low tax authority instead of putting it back in to the society which made them, then I do not think they should be considered for honours. I'm not sure that tax dodgers should be stripped of existing honours, but they certainly shouldn't get more. Actually, I'm sick of wealthy businessmen and party donors buying honours. The fact that Philip Green is a knight of the realm highlights the absurdity of the system.

I'm also quite uneasy about Virgin getting involved in politics in the way they have. Corbyn has vowed to break their rail cartel, and they decided it was appropriate to contribute to the ridiculous media assault on him, which I think was wrong. But I do not think that is as an honour-stripping matter. Unlike Green's handing of the BHS pension fund, which is.

 

[lesliedellow]

I’ve been a tax exile for seven years, says Branson

If someone does very well from the platform provided by our society, and then moves their income to a low tax authority instead of putting it back in to the society which made them, then I do not think they should be considered for honours. I'm not sure that tax dodgers should be stripped of existing honours, but they certainly shouldn't get more. Actually, I'm sick of wealthy businessmen and party donors buying honours. The fact that Philip Green is a knight of the realm highlights the absurdity of the system.

I'm also quite uneasy about Virgin getting involved in politics in the way they have. Corbyn has vowed to break their rail cartel, and they decided it was appropriate to contribute to the ridiculous media assault on him, which I think was wrong. But I do not think that is as an honour-stripping matter. Unlike Green's handing of the BHS pension fund, which is.

If somebody thinks it is a threat to democracy to criticise politicians, I ask myself what they might propose to do about it, given half the chance.

 

[LionL]

If somebody thinks it is a threat to democracy to criticise politicians, I ask myself what they might propose to do about it, given half the chance.

Make it a prime requisite of those who wish to criticise our system that they come back to live in Britain and pay their taxes perhaps...?

 

[lesliedellow]

Make it a prime requisite of those who wish to criticise our system that they come back to live in Britain and pay their taxes perhaps...?

"How dare he criticise the Dear Leader. He must be punished (stripped of his knighthood) immediately." That sounds slightly North Korean to me.

 

[LionL]

"How dare he criticise the Dear Leader. He must be punished (stripped of his knighthood) immediately." That sounds slightly North Korean to me.

How dare he avoid paying taxes yet still criticise is the question I am more interested in.
Tell me, as a fellow Liberal Democrat, what is your stance on tax avoidance?

 

[lesliedellow]

How dare he avoid paying taxes yet still criticise is the question I am more interested in.
Tell me, as a fellow Liberal Democrat, what is your stance on tax avoidance?

I haven't given it much thought. It isn't, in any case, what McDonell was on about. But tax avoidence doesn't bother me half as much as somebody who sounds as though he would like to establish the People's Democratic Republic of wherever.

 

[Oafman]

"How dare he criticise the Dear Leader. He must be punished (stripped of his knighthood) immediately." That sounds slightly North Korean to me.

This is a fairly large misrepresentation of what McDonnell wrote. His argument seems to be focused on the tax dodging, rather than on the silencing of critics!

 

[Dave RP]

I’ve been a tax exile for seven years, says Branson

If someone does very well from the platform provided by our society, and then moves their income to a low tax authority instead of putting it back in to the society which made them, then I do not think they should be considered for honours. I'm not sure that tax dodgers should be stripped of existing honours, but they certainly shouldn't get more. Actually, I'm sick of wealthy businessmen and party donors buying honours. The fact that Philip Green is a knight of the realm highlights the absurdity of the system.

I'm also quite uneasy about Virgin getting involved in politics in the way they have. Corbyn has vowed to break their rail cartel, and they decided it was appropriate to contribute to the ridiculous media assault on him, which I think was wrong. But I do not think that is as an honour-stripping matter. Unlike Green's handing of the BHS pension fund, which is.

Corbyn tried to make political capital out of a rail journey, all he did was proved 2 things - 1. He is either to lazy or too stupid to book a ticket on a train, and that is not a great advert for a potential Prime Minister. I've just checked now and for the train he was on there are tickets available on every train this week for a reserved seat. A man of his position with a full time secretary should be able to book a seat on a train for a pre-planned trip. He wasn't rushing up to see his sick mother, this was a planned visit. Oh, and on his salary he could have booked first class and enjoyed a meal on the way, or would that not suit his socialist image?

2. He proved he's a liar, as there were spare unreserved seats. In addition for an intelligent man to say that he couldn't sit in reserved seats is just plain stupid. All of us who travel on trains know that if the seat is empty when you leave London, you can at least use that seat until the stop from where it is reserved, not that he needed to as there were empty unreserved seats anyway.

The tax affairs of Branson are irrelevant to this discussion. If he is doing something illegal, than arrest and charge him. If he is doing something that is legal but we don't like, then change the law. All wealthy people try to avoid paying tax, Tony Benn, the Millibands and many other politicians of the left have all used the rules to reduce their tax affairs, should they be excluded from political discussion?

Corbyn chose to attack a company with a hugely successful chairman and with a very strong public image, he needs to pick his targets a little better and also make sure he covers his tracks a little better.

 

[Oafman]

Corbyn tried to make political capital out of a rail journey, all he did was proved 2 things - 1. He is either to lazy or too stupid to book a ticket on a train, and that is not a great advert for a potential Prime Minister. I've just checked now and for the train he was on there are tickets available on every train this week for a reserved seat. A man of his position with a full time secretary should be able to book a seat on a train for a pre-planned trip. He wasn't rushing up to see his sick mother, this was a planned visit.

Did he know in advance what train he was going to get? I regularly buy open tickets, or get a ticket when I arrive at the station, because I can't be certain exactly which train I'll take. Could that be the case for the leader of the opposition? I'm sure it could.

Oh, and on his salary he could have booked first class and enjoyed a meal on the way, or would that not suit his socialist image?

Perhaps he thinks it's a rip off? Perhaps he would prefer not to give additional money to this rail franchise, and further swell their profits? Perhaps, rather than not suiting his 'socialist image', it would in fact not suit his socialist principles. Corbyn is the first leader of a major party in living memory who does put his principles before his image, and this train gate nonsense does nothing to shake my belief that this is the case.

2. He proved he's a liar, as there were spare unreserved seats. In addition for an intelligent man to say that he couldn't sit in reserved seats is just plain stupid. All of us who travel on trains know that if the seat is empty when you leave London, you can at least use that seat until the stop from where it is reserved, not that he needed to as there were empty unreserved seats anyway.

Maybe he just wanted to make the point? Maybe he wanted to highlight the fact that millions of people every year do sit on the floor of trains, as the taxpayer subsidises the huge profits of rail franchises? Many passengers on this route have come forward to talk about how often they do not get a seat. This story has drawn attention to the difficulties faced by many rail users. "Proved himself a liar"?! Please.

The tax affairs of Branson are irrelevant to this discussion. If he is doing something illegal, than arrest and charge him. If he is doing something that is legal but we don't like, then change the law.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO HAPPEN! That is precisely what Corbyn plans to do. And the only way to do that is for people to vote for the party who represents them, instead of the party who represents hedge funds.

Corbyn chose to attack a company with a hugely successful chairman and with a very strong public image, he needs to pick his targets a little better and also make sure he covers his tracks a little better.

Corbyn attacked a company who are part of a cartel which is ripping off British rail travellers and British taxpayers. A company who are providing an inadequate service, charging huge amounts for tickets, and making vast profits, all because people have no choice but to use them. The exchequer is subsidising these profits at 4 times the rate it was at the end of British Rail (that's adjusted for inflation).

And to top it all off, the personal income made by the largest shareholder of this corrupt arrangement gets squirrelled off to the British Virgin Islands, before the taxpayer even gets any tax back from it! The whole thing stinks, and I'm very much looking forward to the day when this cartel gets broken up.

 

[Dave RP]

Did he know in advance what train he was going to get? I regularly buy open tickets, or get a ticket when I arrive at the station, because I can't be certain exactly which train I'll take. Could that be the case for the leader of the opposition? I'm sure it could.

Perhaps he thinks it's a rip off? Perhaps he would prefer not to give additional money to this rail franchise, and further swell their profits? Perhaps, rather than not suiting his 'socialist image', it would in fact not suit his socialist principles. Corbyn is the first leader of a major party in living memory who does put his principles before his image, and this train gate nonsense does nothing to shake my belief that this is the case.

Maybe he just wanted to make the point? Maybe he wanted to highlight the fact that millions of people every year do sit on the floor of trains, as the taxpayer subsidises the huge profits of rail franchises? Many passengers on this route have come forward to talk about how often they do not get a seat. This story has drawn attention to the difficulties faced by many rail users. "Proved himself a liar"?! Please.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO HAPPEN! That is precisely what Corbyn plans to do. And the only way to do that is for people to vote for the party who represents them, instead of the party who represents hedge funds.

Corbyn attacked a company who are part of a cartel which is ripping off British rail travellers and British taxpayers. A company who are providing an inadequate service, charging huge amounts for tickets, and making vast profits, all because people have no choice but to use them. The exchequer is subsidising these profits at 4 times the rate it was at the end of British Rail (that's adjusted for inflation).

And to top it all off, the personal income made by the largest shareholder of this corrupt arrangement gets squirrelled off to the British Virgin Islands, before the taxpayer even gets any tax back from it! The whole thing stinks, and I'm very much looking forward to the day when this cartel gets broken up.

1. I feel certain the Leader of the Opposition has a very well planned diary, if he doesn't I would question his organisational skills - or those of the people around him.

2. He is paid over £135,000 a year, plus more than that again in expenses and he had the choice to travel first class. Remember he would have been claiming the second class fare on expenses so it only would have been the top up to first class. It's pointless posturing on his behalf. If he had socialist principles he'd donate a major part of his salary to charities or the treasury, but he won't. He took an interest free loan from Unite to assist in his leadership contest, £50,000 subsequently written off - £50,000 donation from Unite - where were his socialist principles then? Let alone the rent free premises and free staff provided by Unite totalling £25,000 - socialism with a ££££ face.

3. He wanted to make a point but he did it in a very naive manner, did he think Virgin would sit back and let their service be trashed publicly? If you're going to make a point do it on facts, not a failed publicity stunt.

4. We had 13 years of a Labour government who failed to deal with tax loopholes, maybe they kept them open so they can line their own pockets? However, I still say that the tax affairs of Branson are not relevant to the subject of who owns the railways. I didn't see Brown/ Blair/ Balls rushing to re-nationalise the railways though, and once the cost is established I bet their won't be much of a queue after the next election.

5. If Corbyn gets his way and the trains are re-nationalised where is the choice then? It'll be back to the British Rail days, and I'm old enough to remember them with zero affection. Apart from the fact that we can't afford the billions it'll cost, there is no public support for a return to failed Labour policies.

As for vote telling people to vote for the Party that represents them - Corbyn is tied to Unite Union, they tell him what to do, not the people who vote for him.

He's part of that Islington champagne socialist clique who wouldn't know the working class if they fell over them, and that's why labour voters are leaving them in droves, Labour has lost touch with its base, Blair/ Brown/ Balls/ Cooper started it, Corbyn will finish the job i'm afraid.

 

[Oafman]

1. I feel certain the Leader of the Opposition has a very well planned diary, if he doesn't I would question his organisational skills - or those of the people around him.

There could easily be scheduled appointments with uncertain ending times. Parliamentary debates fit that description, but there are many others.

2. He is paid over £135,000 a year, plus more than that again in expenses and he had the choice to travel first class. Remember he would have been claiming the second class fare on expenses so it only would have been the top up to first class. It's pointless posturing on his behalf.

He's not claiming to be unable to afford to travel 1st class. He chooses not to do so out of principle.

If he had socialist principles he'd donate a major part of his salary to charities or the treasury, but he won't.

How do you know what he gives to charity?

He took an interest free loan from Unite to assist in his leadership contest, £50,000 subsequently written off - £50,000 donation from Unite - where were his socialist principles then? Let alone the rent free premises and free staff provided by Unite totalling £25,000 - socialism with a ££££ face.

Accepting donations towards a political campaign does not clash with being a social democrat. At all. At least donations from Unions are actually donations from many thousands of normal people. The other party gets the same donation from one super-wealthy hedge fund manager.

3. He wanted to make a point but he did it in a very naive manner, did he think Virgin would sit back and let their service be trashed publicly? If you're going to make a point do it on facts, not a failed publicity stunt.

Are we pretending that Virgin released these images to protect their corporate reputation, rather than to undermine Corbyn's political reputation?!

The point about privatised rail is, it doesn't matter if these companies have a bad reputation - people will have to use them anyway. Southern Rail gets less than 30% of its trains in on time. On an average weekday on Southern, 2.5 times as many people stand as get a seat. Business is booming, even though the service they provide is so shambolic. Because people have no choice.

Capitalism only works when there's competition.

4. We had 13 years of a Labour government who failed to deal with tax loopholes, maybe they kept them open so they can line their own pockets?

That wasn't proper Labour.

However, I still say that the tax affairs of Branson are not relevant to the subject of who owns the railways.

Agreed. But they are very topical.

I didn't see Brown/ Blair/ Balls rushing to re-nationalise the railways though, and once the cost is established I bet their won't be much of a queue after the next election.

Blair privatised whatever he could. As for the cost, these are short term franchises, so we just bring them back under public control. We don't have to buy this stuff back.

5. If Corbyn gets his way and the trains are re-nationalised where is the choice then? It'll be back to the British Rail days, and I'm old enough to remember them with zero affection. Apart from the fact that we can't afford the billions it'll cost

It won't. We're subsidising the railways at a rate 4 times higher than we were at the end of BR. And that has been adjusted for inflation. Nationalisation will save the country money.

And any profits made on the line would go back to the Treasury. The best performing franchise in Britain was, for many years, the East Coast line. And guess what? It was publicly owned! Until last year, that is, when the Tories privatised it. After all, we can't allow a shining example of public ownership to continue, can we, no matter how much it was contributing to the treasury.

there is no public support for a return to failed Labour policies.

British people support re-nationalising the railways by 60%-20%

In another survey, 58% said they want to renationalise rail, electricity and water!

As for vote telling people to vote for the Party that represents them - Corbyn is tied to Unite Union, they tell him what to do, not the people who vote for him.

Which undermines democracy more? Unions representing millions off people (literally) having some influence over the Labour party, or a handful of billionaire hedge fund managers having influence over the Conservative party?

Personally I believe that taxpayers should fund political parties. I would end all donations. But in the meantime, which is the greater concern; millions of people influencing our politics, or a handful of super rich?

He's part of that Islington champagne socialist clique who wouldn't know the working class if they fell over them

You've got the wrong guy. I imagine Corbyn could count the number of glasses of champagne he's ever drunk on one hand. He went to state school and then rose up through the ranks as a union rep. There are plenty of champagne socialists in Islington (though fewer than there used to be when New Labour were in their pomp), but Coprbyn absolutely is not one of them.

Labour has lost touch with its base, Blair/ Brown/ Balls/ Cooper started it, Corbyn will finish the job i'm afraid.

New Labour lost touch with the base, by representing big business instead of normal people. Corbyn will rebuild that trust, by representing normal people instead of big business. All he has to do is survive this ongoing and completely ridiculous media assault, and there will be nothing left for the establishment to throw at him.

 

[Dave RP]

There could easily be scheduled appointments with uncertain ending times. Parliamentary debates fit that description, but there are many others.

He's not claiming to be unable to afford to travel 1st class. He chooses not to do so out of principle.

How do you know what he gives to charity?

Accepting donations towards a political campaign does not clash with being a social democrat. At all. At least donations from Unions are actually donations from many thousands of normal people. The other party gets the same donation from one super-wealthy hedge fund manager.

Are we pretending that Virgin released these images to protect their corporate reputation, rather than to undermine Corbyn's political reputation?!

The point about privatised rail is, it doesn't matter if these companies have a bad reputation - people will have to use them anyway. Southern Rail gets less than 30% of its trains in on time. On an average weekday on Southern, 2.5 times as many people stand as get a seat. Business is booming, even though the service they provide is so shambolic. Because people have no choice.

Capitalism only works when there's competition.

That wasn't proper Labour.

Agreed. But they are very topical.

Blair privatised whatever he could. As for the cost, these are short term franchises, so we just bring them back under public control. We don't have to buy this stuff back.

It won't. We're subsidising the railways at a rate 4 times higher than we were at the end of BR. And that has been adjusted for inflation. Nationalisation will save the country money.

And any profits made on the line would go back to the Treasury. The best performing franchise in Britain was, for many years, the East Coast line. And guess what? It was publicly owned! Until last year, that is, when the Tories privatised it. After all, we can't allow a shining example of public ownership to continue, can we, no matter how much it was contributing to the treasury.

British people support re-nationalising the railways by 60%-20%

In another survey, 58% said they want to renationalise rail, electricity and water!

Which undermines democracy more? Unions representing millions off people (literally) having some influence over the Labour party, or a handful of billionaire hedge fund managers having influence over the Conservative party?

Personally I believe that taxpayers should fund political parties. I would end all donations. But in the meantime, which is the greater concern; millions of people influencing our politics, or a handful of super rich?

You've got the wrong guy. I imagine Corbyn could count the number of glasses of champagne he's ever drunk on one hand. He went to state school and then rose up through the ranks as a union rep. There are plenty of champagne socialists in Islington (though fewer than there used to be when New Labour were in their pomp), but Coprbyn absolutely is not one of them.

New Labour lost touch with the base, by representing big business instead of normal people. Corbyn will rebuild that trust, by representing normal people instead of big business. All he has to do is survive this ongoing and completely ridiculous media assault, and there will be nothing left for the establishment to throw at him.

Well obviously we are at opposite ends of this one so no point in continuing, I'l just say that Unions throwing their members money at Corbyn without consultation is not democratic - the Union Executive decided.

However there will be an Election and the people will decide. If we are still around in 3-4 years, whenever the election is, we'll see who wins but I just can't see the British public being fooled by a phoney throwback like Corbyn, but we voted Brexit so nothing will surprise me. We've never voted for a bash the rich socialist programme but maybe this time we will, if the economy tanks after Brexit or the Tories mess Brexit up, then all bets are off.

 

[Dave RP]

Well obviously we are at opposite ends of this one so no point in continuing, I'l just say that Unions throwing their members money at Corbyn without consultation is not democratic - the Union Executive decided.

However there will be an Election and the people will decide. If we are still around in 3-4 years, whenever the election is, we'll see who wins but I just can't see the British public being fooled by a phoney throwback like Corbyn, but we voted Brexit so nothing will surprise me. We've never voted for a bash the rich socialist programme but maybe this time we will, if the economy tanks after Brexit or the Tories mess Brexit up, then all bets are off.

PS He went to Private Prep school, grammar school (2 E's at A level) and failed to finish his degree, since then he's "worked" as union reps and as an MP - man of the people all right............

 

[Oafman]

Well obviously we are at opposite ends of this one so no point in continuing, I'l just say that Unions throwing their members money at Corbyn without consultation is not democratic - the Union Executive decided.

Union members elect their leaders, and can remove them if they don't like their decisions.

However there will be an Election and the people will decide. If we are still around in 3-4 years, whenever the election is, we'll see who wins but I just can't see the British public being fooled by a phoney throwback like Corbyn, but we voted Brexit so nothing will surprise me. We've never voted for a bash the rich socialist programme but maybe this time we will, if the economy tanks after Brexit or the Tories mess Brexit up, then all bets are off.

Bash the rich socialism isn't on the table. Corbyn is not Michael Foot. All he is suggesting is a return to pre 80s centrism. Things like nationalised utilities were hardly viewed as extreme socialism back then.

PS He went to Private Prep school, grammar school (2 E's at A level) and failed to finish his degree, since then he's "worked" as union reps and as an MP - man of the people all right............

He isn't from a working class background. But you only need to look at his policies to see whose side he is on, and who he will represent. And you only have to look at the policies of the Tories, as they slash income tax for top earners and attempt to cut tax credits to working families, to know who they represent.

 

[Dave RP]

Union members elect their leaders, and can remove them if they don't like their decisions.

Bash the rich socialism isn't on the table. Corbyn is not Michael Foot. All he is suggesting is a return to pre 80s centrism. Things like nationalised utilities were hardly viewed as extreme socialism back then.

He isn't from a working class background. But you only need to look at his policies to see whose side he is on, and who he will represent. And you only have to look at the policies of the Tories, as they slash income tax for top earners and attempt to cut tax credits to working families, to know who they represent.

The Tories bashed the middle classes with low thresholds for the higher rate taxes, and tax credits enable employers to underpay staff whilst being subsidised by the state, but hey I'm a working class Tory so we just have to disagree. Ps the 1970's were awful. That's not a place to go back to!