Renton

Well I find that a bit hard to believe.

PAYE 40%, NI 9%, Student Loan 9% = 58%. Then there's Council Tax, VAT, Petrol Tax, TV license, Road Tax, employer contributions (paid on my behalf) etc.... I agree things have improved in the last 10 years and I would vote for Labour again if they hadn't racked up £850 Billion in debt and sold off the gold. They are too reactive for my liking, they should have regulated the bank and forced them to lend. I doubt you'll find any first time buyers voting Labour. Clearly you're not employed in a field that involves Maths regarding your income tax calculations. But anyway, you've clearly done well for yourself. As you are paying back a student loan, you must have graduated quite recently, and are probably quite young. And as you are paying the higher rate of tax, you must be in a well paid job - well done. But despite this, you still want a bigger share of the pie. Aye. The tory party is for you alright Phil, or should I call you Jack?

The thing is I was heavily involved in politics in my teens and was disenchanted basically by how firstly constituency parties are run and secondly the secrecy and obstructionism apparent in the daily grind of the commons. The whole machinery basically is set up to get in the way of the people. Now we have another tier of intellectual prevarication and mystification coming from the EU. There is a middle class elite basically getting a free ride right across the board where careers come before politics/conscience/change and that is completely wrong. This is why the political classes are so out of touch not only with people but the world in general. Tbf I'd rather have a middle class elite with some social mobility (witness Bridget) than a ruling upper class or aristocracy. And for all you complain about the political system, in general I have to say the UK is a pretty damn good place to live.

Parky for PM. He's got it sorted.

I got 14/14 with 8.02 to spare. I did use a pen and paper though. I actually guessed the last question right.

Random, but all the same, it seems reasonable to blame the people for the people not turning out.

Point of principle?

Bet she finds the time and money to vote for X factor and the myriad of other 'talent' shows that abound though. That reminds me, Simon Cowell has endorsed the Conservatives today, so if CT hasn't convinced you yet, I'm sure that fact will.

Can you not delete CT as well? Btw, does anyone remember Ross Gurko? Old skool, they were hilarious.

By coincidence I was reading about a (thankfully) rare disease called Fatal Familial Insomnia (FFI) yesterday. Basically, if you have the gene for this disease (which can be detected with genetic testing) you're fucked. You live normally until your 50s, when you gradually lose the ability to sleep. Eventually you can't sleep at all and no drug intervention helps. You then go mad and die a horrible death as your brain destructs. How can anyone look me in the face and tell me there's a God that allows that?

Talking of myths it looks like you've swallowed that one. I'm not sure if theres been a boardroom meeting ever where,when a company has a huge new order on the table,or has a chance to move into a new market,to expand and develop, the chairman has turned round and said "but NI contributions are too high for the x amount of extra staff we'll have to employ,lets not bother eh?" Its a bare faced lie peddled by the business community in an attempt to gain favour with a potential new tory government. 23 businesses leaders including Sainsburys and M&S agree with me.... link The rise has to be absorbed somewhere, I'd be surprised if businesses don't pass it on in one form or another. What did these leaders say about the minimum wage then? It's a 1% increase ffs, we all know this won't even touch the sides of the problem so stop whinging. I'm intrigued that you pay more than 70% tax on your 12 hour a day earnings Phil, perhaps you can enlighten us how that is the case? For the record, I happen to fall into one of the demographics which has benifitted least from Labour over the last decade. But I accept this, because I recognise I am fortunate to be where I am, and yes, unlike you, I can feel empathy towards the poorer sections of the community. I'm happy to accept that taxation should be progressive - if you are hit by it, you're doing alright in any case.

It's interesting you single me out there CT, perhaps it's because I have the most posts on this thread other than yourself, or perhaps it's because you're rattled? In any case, I'm sure if you read the large majority of my posts on this thread, you'll find I actually am critical of the current tory incumbents and their policies rather than previous tory governments. Your posts in this thread show you know very little, if anything about Tory policy only soundbites you have read in The Mirror. So, for instance, regarding Cameron (the present leader of the conservatives), I think he comes across as a shallow PR man Yet it is Clegg who has spent the last 10 years AS a PR man with no political conviction whatsoever. The thought of his mate Osbourne being in charge of the economy actually scares the shit out of me - do you really think he is qualified for the job or do you think that perhaps he is where he is because of his background? Is this opinion based on any fact whatsoever? Why do you think it is that virtually every business leader and even proper financial papers such as the economist and FT dont share your concerns? Could it be they know something you dont? Regarding the recent decisions that Cameron would have made during the banking crisis, it's my contention that he would have literally destroyed Great Britain plc. I'm not alone in thinking that. You didnt think that. You heard it and repeated it. Regarding present tory policies, I've discussed these several times on this thread. For me they range from the dangerous (immediate cutbacks when we are hardly out the recession), Again, repeating Gordons soundbites to the ridiculous ('Big Society' and tax breaks for married couples), to the downright evil (tax breaks for the super rich). Which ones that then? I've also pointed out that Cameron has said he will specifically target the North East regarding cutbacks - something you seemingly don't give a shit about. Linky please? Are these points present enough for you? No, just soundbites I'd also throw in the fact I know my local MP quite well and he has proved to be a good leader at constituency level. And that the tory challenger in my constituency is an evil hound. Oh, and one last thing, you have admitted you are a 'dyed in the wool' conservative, so your above comment seems a bit hypocritical, does it not? Accused from CT of repeating 'sound bites'. Oh the irony. You are a hypocrite if nothing else - look at your signature ffs. I can't follow your formatting, before I go to bed I will point out I don't read the Mirror (the Times, now a conservative paper, is my main paper); the points I've stated are MY opinions (yes, based on what I've heard/read - how do you inform yourself?); Cameron told Paxman he was specifically going to cut the public sector in this region (I witnessed that on TV, do a search if you like); and I was referring of course to inheritance tax relief for millionaires - would you like to justify that? In a nutshell what it comes down to is that I believe in a liberal, progressive, and fair society in general and believe the North East and neighbouring areas need help from government specifically. The Conservatives don't offer that, their inheritance tax cut for millionaires alone shows that they are the same old party that oppose wealth distribution and social mobility. 'Keep the plebs in their place' basically. What amazes me is that peoiple they hold in complete disdain like yourself can't see through them, even when the evidence is before their eyes.

Talking of myths it looks like you've swallowed that one. I'm not sure if theres been a boardroom meeting ever where,when a company has a huge new order on the table,or has a chance to move into a new market,to expand and develop, the chairman has turned round and said "but NI contributions are too high for the x amount of extra staff we'll have to employ,lets not bother eh?" Its a bare faced lie peddled by the business community in an attempt to gain favour with a potential new tory government. Aye, it will make less than quid a day difference to employers for every full time employee they have, i.e hardly any difference at all. Of course all these high earning CEOs etc have a huge vested interest in a return to tory rule through their own personal tax cuts. The same people who claimed minimum wage would wreck the economy etc. I also love it when Cameron calls this 'a tax on jobs' as if its something new. It's pretty much just a tax on income which is about the fairest tax there is.

It's interesting you single me out there CT, perhaps it's because I have the most posts on this thread other than yourself, or perhaps it's because you're rattled? In any case, I'm sure if you read the large majority of my posts on this thread, you'll find I actually am critical of the current tory incumbents and their policies rather than previous tory governments. So, for instance, regarding Cameron (the present leader of the conservatives), I think he comes across as a shallow PR man with no political conviction whatsoever. The thought of his mate Osbourne being in charge of the economy actually scares the shit out of me - do you really think he is qualified for the job or do you think that perhaps he is where he is because of his background? Regarding the recent decisions that Cameron would have made during the banking crisis, it's my contention that he would have literally destroyed Great Britain plc. I'm not alone in thinking that. Regarding present tory policies, I've discussed these several times on this thread. For me they range from the dangerous (immediate cutbacks when we are hardly out the recession), to the ridiculous ('Big Society' and tax breaks for married couples), to the downright evil (tax breaks for the super rich). I've also pointed out that Cameron has said he will specifically target the North East regarding cutbacks - something you seemingly don't give a shit about. Are these points present enough for you? I'd also throw in the fact I know my local MP quite well and he has proved to be a good leader at constituency level. And that the tory challenger in my constituency is an evil hound. Oh, and one last thing, you have admitted you are a 'dyed in the wool' conservative, so your above comment seems a bit hypocritical, does it not?

Cheers for the heads up. I've actually played the game of it (Rockstar on the PSP) which is superb but have yet to see the film. it was released in 1979. It's about gang warfare in New York. Is it the right one that you are playing Renton ? It's on tonight at 2310 and also repeated at 2100 tomorrow. Aye, that's the one, the game uses a lot of footage from the film, has the same story line, and is superbly violent. This'll save me buying it. Can you dig it?

Cheers for the heads up. I've actually played the game of it (Rockstar on the PSP) which is superb but have yet to see the film.

No, it's a fair point about targeting civilians. They've achieved new levels of cuntfuckery.

Nope, that still doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you're saying there wasn't a central character from whose viewpoint the film was based on. There was, it was Batman. Whether Bale acted him well or not, or the director focussed enough on him, is another matter. You just wanted to shoehorn a big word into the conversation, admit it.

That's a bit daft, how would they do that? Arrange for a fight at 2 o'clock at Hyde Park? Three men armed with fertilizer bombs against 10,000 British soldiers with tanks and planes? I hate terrorism as much as the next man but I can see the logic of assymetrical warfare and it tends to work in the end - Northern Ireland is a point in hand. You've levelled the same accusations of cowardice against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past as well, but by that definition the French resistance in WW II would be cowards too. how about pissing off back to where their allegiance really lies, and putting on a uniform ? Instead of coming here and fighting their "undercover" jihad ? Because they can do a lot more damage here? Anyway it's a long time since warfare was fought under Marquess of Queensberry rules, it's a dirty business whoever is fighting. And these deluded, brainwashed fuckers really believe it is a war, that's their mentality.

one good thing about the yanks is if they get who did it they won't pussy foot around with them like we do. and the guns, they're good too... right? yep, I'd shoot them without a moments hesitation. Yeah! Shoot them all. That's makes us better... right? for shooting terrorists ? No. It gets rid of them. End of story. So you'd have a trial by jury first? depends on the circumstances. If its a situation whereby you need to shoot them then do it. I'm not interested in debating the road of "make sure they are armed" or any of this other bollocks either, which is do gooder nonsense. In the heat of the moment its either kill or be killed. If someone runs away, then you presume they are guilty and shoot before they detonate. If only someone would presume you were guilty Guilty of what ? I knew you - and others - would disagree with that, but I'm sorry such things are instant life or death decisions and in the case of the Brazilian, mistakes are made but it was his own fault. If a cop, especially told me to stand still etc I certainly wouldn't run away. Would you ? Didn't it emerge the police lied about that being the case? That in itself tells you they fucked up and tried to cover up what they did. I know they were under pressure etc. and I think the initial bombers were more responsible for what happened than the police involved but Menezes did absolutely nothing wrong. To say it's his own fault he died is ridiculous. when you run away, what are they supposed to think and do about it ? In this particular case, if he didn't run away, why did they shoot him ? Our cops don't make a habit of walking round shooting people for nowt, unlike terrorists. You are going to get an odd mistake. Either that, or our cops/security services are killed first. What do you think of those 3 SAS having to testify in court when they shot those 3 scumbags in Gib ? Disgraceful. What they did was right and they should not have been held to account for their actions. Not sure how I would react if I were chased on the tube by a pack of men dressed in normal clothes armed with guns either. If I ran, would my death be acceptable collateral damage? Your last bullet - are you suggesting the people who killed Menezes shouldn't have even had to answer for their actions? You would shit yourself, like most people. They have to accept it was a mistake. They would look at the intelligence and accept it was wrong on a particular occasion, but what else can they do ? I agree, but it sounded like you didn't think there should have been a full inquiry in an earlier post. From what I remember though they were a bit gung-ho and negligent in this case.

That's a bit daft, how would they do that? Arrange for a fight at 2 o'clock at Hyde Park? Three men armed with fertilizer bombs against 10,000 British soldiers with tanks and planes? I hate terrorism as much as the next man but I can see the logic of assymetrical warfare and it tends to work in the end - Northern Ireland is a point in hand. You've levelled the same accusations of cowardice against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past as well, but by that definition the French resistance in WW II would be cowards too.

one good thing about the yanks is if they get who did it they won't pussy foot around with them like we do. and the guns, they're good too... right? yep, I'd shoot them without a moments hesitation. Yeah! Shoot them all. That's makes us better... right? for shooting terrorists ? No. It gets rid of them. End of story. So you'd have a trial by jury first? depends on the circumstances. If its a situation whereby you need to shoot them then do it. I'm not interested in debating the road of "make sure they are armed" or any of this other bollocks either, which is do gooder nonsense. In the heat of the moment its either kill or be killed. If someone runs away, then you presume they are guilty and shoot before they detonate. If only someone would presume you were guilty Guilty of what ? I knew you - and others - would disagree with that, but I'm sorry such things are instant life or death decisions and in the case of the Brazilian, mistakes are made but it was his own fault. If a cop, especially told me to stand still etc I certainly wouldn't run away. Would you ? Didn't it emerge the police lied about that being the case? That in itself tells you they fucked up and tried to cover up what they did. I know they were under pressure etc. and I think the initial bombers were more responsible for what happened than the police involved but Menezes did absolutely nothing wrong. To say it's his own fault he died is ridiculous. when you run away, what are they supposed to think and do about it ? In this particular case, if he didn't run away, why did they shoot him ? Our cops don't make a habit of walking round shooting people for nowt, unlike terrorists. You are going to get an odd mistake. Either that, or our cops/security services are killed first. What do you think of those 3 SAS having to testify in court when they shot those 3 scumbags in Gib ? Disgraceful. What they did was right and they should not have been held to account for their actions. He didn't run away. He ran to catch the tube. Massive difference. I've done similar many times myself. The Gibraltar case has no relevence to this one but I didn't have a problem with the actions of those involved if that answers your question. You wouldn't even have heard of the Gib or Menezes case if Leazes had his way, is the implication of his post. Scary stuff.

one good thing about the yanks is if they get who did it they won't pussy foot around with them like we do. and the guns, they're good too... right? yep, I'd shoot them without a moments hesitation. Yeah! Shoot them all. That's makes us better... right? for shooting terrorists ? No. It gets rid of them. End of story. So you'd have a trial by jury first? depends on the circumstances. If its a situation whereby you need to shoot them then do it. I'm not interested in debating the road of "make sure they are armed" or any of this other bollocks either, which is do gooder nonsense. In the heat of the moment its either kill or be killed. If someone runs away, then you presume they are guilty and shoot before they detonate. If only someone would presume you were guilty Guilty of what ? I knew you - and others - would disagree with that, but I'm sorry such things are instant life or death decisions and in the case of the Brazilian, mistakes are made but it was his own fault. If a cop, especially told me to stand still etc I certainly wouldn't run away. Would you ? Didn't it emerge the police lied about that being the case? That in itself tells you they fucked up and tried to cover up what they did. I know they were under pressure etc. and I think the initial bombers were more responsible for what happened than the police involved but Menezes did absolutely nothing wrong. To say it's his own fault he died is ridiculous. when you run away, what are they supposed to think and do about it ? In this particular case, if he didn't run away, why did they shoot him ? Our cops don't make a habit of walking round shooting people for nowt, unlike terrorists. You are going to get an odd mistake. Either that, or our cops/security services are killed first. What do you think of those 3 SAS having to testify in court when they shot those 3 scumbags in Gib ? Disgraceful. What they did was right and they should not have been held to account for their actions. Not sure how I would react if I were chased on the tube by a pack of men dressed in normal clothes armed with guns either. If I ran, would my death be acceptable collateral damage? Your last bullet - are you suggesting the people who killed Menezes shouldn't have even had to answer for their actions?

And? I don't see your point really. They aren't being stitched up because they've no chance of winning anyway. They knew that when they started campaigning. And whatever keeps the Tories out of power as far as I'm concerned, mainly because of their disdain for where I live. A good deal of MPs out there are not representing the first seat they stood for. Blair stood for Beaconsfield in a 1982 by-election and lost his deposit. They all see it as character building. You're demonstrating one of the biggest problems of society today CT - this ridiculous idealolgy that people shouldn't put themselves/be put into a position where they'd lose. There's no longer a sports day at my kid's school because 'it's unfair on those who don't win'. Utter shite! How can you ever appreciate winning anything if you don't know what it's like to lose? CT knows exactly what it's like to lose an argument tbf.