General Election 2015

1.The IPCC uses 55 different models in it's reports upon climate change, yet there are such marked differences with them that only one can be right.
2. Although the average temperature rose sharply by 0.9 F during the last quarter of the twentieth century, there has been very little increase in the last 16 years despite a 25% increase in CO2 from humans. The models fail to capture this slowing.
3. Shrinking Arctic sea ice is observed by the models, yet they fail to describe the comparable growth in Antarctic sea ice which is at a record high.
The above three points are from the Wall Street Journal article - Climate Science Is Not Settled by leading scientist S. E. Koonin. There are many other points which show the IPCC's flawed arguments on climate change. People are spending billions on this, yet the real areas of concern like pollution through pesticides, GMO's, soil erosion, deforestation etc are overlooked.

Then why do the IPCC need to hide data? Are you an expert on Energy Management? I have a post grad on the subject and many prominent scientists like the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore and Dr David Bellamy also believe it's a myth.

Global warming is happening. They've not hid data at all. The data is synthesised to factor in all results which actually means a more accurate recording is taken overall. The data is there for anyone to see. The tax argument is the best one yet. Are you a member on the David Icke forums by any chance?

Can you explain why the polar ice caps are now increasing ? And a lot of scientist agree that global warming isn't happening

Polar ice caps are now increasing obviously disproves global warming overall doesn't it? Omg you really need to resit your geography GCSE as you are bloody clueless.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

I do hope you're not one of those extremely thick types who thinks that because there's still snow in the world global warming cant be happening.

Your a bit of a pecker head arnt you ,for the last 30 years scienctists and governments have Said they are melting coz of global warming so how come they are now getting bigger in fact the southern ice sheet has grown by a third in the last few years ?

The reason the Government and Scientists say it, it's because of the none jobs and taxes it creates but it's costing us billions.

The say the sea levels have risen and will continue meaning cities across the globe will be flooded, really? I thought Venice would have been flooded years ago going by their theory as it's at sea level but for some miracle the sea levels haven't made any difference unless they have different sea water than us.

All bullshit

Agree it's all bullshit

The reason the Government and Scientists say it, it's because of the none jobs and taxes it creates but it's costing us billions.

The say the sea levels have risen and will continue meaning cities across the globe will be flooded, really? I thought Venice would have been flooded years ago going by their theory as it's at sea level but for some miracle the sea levels haven't made any difference unless they have different sea water than us.

All bullshit

Yet another person who doesn't understand climatology. Are you a Kipper by any chance cause this is the sort of uneducated crap I'd expect from them.

OMG SEA LEVELS CANT BE RISING CAUSE VENICE STILL EXISTS OMG.

I've heard it all now. Sea Levels are rising by about 1.6-1.7mm per year and you think Venice is going to disappear? Good grief some mothers do have em.

The reason the Government and Scientists say it, it's because of the none jobs and taxes it creates but it's costing us billions.

The say the sea levels have risen and will continue meaning cities across the globe will be flooded, really? I thought Venice would have been flooded years ago going by their theory as it's at sea level but for some miracle the sea levels haven't made any difference unless they have different sea water than us.

All bullshit

Yet another person who doesn't understand climatology. Are you a Kipper by any chance cause this is the sort of uneducated crap I'd expect from them.

OMG SEA LEVELS CANT BE RISING CAUSE VENICE STILL EXISTS OMG.

I've heard it all now. Sea Levels are rising by about 1.6-1.7mm per year and you think Venice is going to disappear? Good grief some mothers do have em.

are you roathy ? Fair play you are a bit of a plank ,opinion on everything but when asked to nail your vote to someone you can't tbh if you don't vote how can you slate anyone ?????

Labour still want to copy France and raise taxes and public spending, yet France has been described as a 'basket case' because of the high unemployment and slower growth that these policies have brought. Furthermore, they will join with the SNP which will be a disaster for the UK.
The Lib Dems have been so poor that their leader may not get in as an MP according to recent polls.
Plaid wants Westminster to stop governing us, yet is happy to be governed by the Germans and French via the EU. They are a bunch of hypocrites who just want more political career jobs.
The Greens would not make it illegal to join terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Perhaps they long for a return to the Dark Ages with Sharia Law so that energy consumption e.t.c. would be reduced.
The Tories have done a reasonable job with the economy, but are reluctant to leave the EU which is causing a lot of our problems; don't want a return to Grammar schools and are not committed enough on defence. The only party that will take us out of the EU, build new Grammar Schools and increase defence spending by 40% is UKIP. These are sensible policies as the countries with consistently the highest standard of living in Europe over the last few decades are Norway and Switzerland, both outside the EU (but still trade with the EU);the country which has been at the top of the education tables is Singapore which still has a system based upon our old Grammar School system, and finally, with the sabre rattling of Putin and the threat of terrorism the armed forces need to be strengthened, not left with carriers without aircraft.

Okay here goes...

Labour don't want to raise public spending. Labour do want to raise the top rate of tax to 50%, France did have a 75% rate but as far as I am aware they binned that experiment. Labour don't want to join with the SNP, they want a majority Government.

It is interesting that you seemingly cite Norway and Switzerland as evidence for why increasing defense spending is a good idea...

Can you explain how the EU is causing most of our problems? You mention Putin, I would suggest the only thing making him think twice is this union of countries...

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

are you roathy ? Fair play you are a bit of a plank ,opinion on everything but when asked to nail your vote to someone you can't tbh if you don't vote how can you slate anyone ?????

Im voting Plaid. Simple as that. I've made that clear enough times.

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Can you explain why democratic-socialism hasn't driven Volvo, Ericsson and other top companies out of the Nordic countries then. We're all just waiting to hear this.

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Can you explain why democratic-socialism hasn't driven Volvo, Ericsson and other top companies out of the Nordic countries then. We're all just waiting to hear this.

My point was about France not Swedish countries and companies. Shall I get the map out for you ?

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Can you explain why democratic-socialism hasn't driven Volvo, Ericsson and other top companies out of the Nordic countries then. We're all just waiting to hear this.

My point was about France not Swedish countries and companies. Shall I get the map out for you ?

I dont care what your point was about. My question I put to you had sod all to do with your point. Answer the question. Why do democratic-socialist countries do just fine?

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Can you explain why democratic-socialism hasn't driven Volvo, Ericsson and other top companies out of the Nordic countries then. We're all just waiting to hear this.

My point was about France not Swedish countries and companies. Shall I get the map out for you ?

I dont care what your point was about. My question I put to you had sod all to do with your point. Answer the question. Why do democratic-socialist countries do just fine?

trying to answer a question with a question. Lol you got a long way to go son

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Can you explain why democratic-socialism hasn't driven Volvo, Ericsson and other top companies out of the Nordic countries then. We're all just waiting to hear this.

My point was about France not Swedish countries and companies. Shall I get the map out for you ?

I dont care what your point was about. My question I put to you had sod all to do with your point. Answer the question. Why do democratic-socialist countries do just fine?

trying to answer a question with a question. Lol you got a long way to go son

Why do democratic-socialist countries like the Nordic countries do well? Answer it please.

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Can you explain why democratic-socialism hasn't driven Volvo, Ericsson and other top companies out of the Nordic countries then. We're all just waiting to hear this.

My point was about France not Swedish countries and companies. Shall I get the map out for you ?

I dont care what your point was about. My question I put to you had sod all to do with your point. Answer the question. Why do democratic-socialist countries do just fine?

trying to answer a question with a question. Lol you got a long way to go son

Why do democratic-socialist countries like the Nordic countries do well? Answer it please.

My point is about French individuals not Swedish companies.

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

So immigration is good for us then?

It is if they can py their own way. The French population who moved are all within their higher tax bracket.

Labour still want to copy France and raise taxes and public spending, yet France has been described as a 'basket case' because of the high unemployment and slower growth that these policies have brought. Furthermore, they will join with the SNP which will be a disaster for the UK.
The Lib Dems have been so poor that their leader may not get in as an MP according to recent polls.
Plaid wants Westminster to stop governing us, yet is happy to be governed by the Germans and French via the EU. They are a bunch of hypocrites who just want more political career jobs.
The Greens would not make it illegal to join terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Perhaps they long for a return to the Dark Ages with Sharia Law so that energy consumption e.t.c. would be reduced.
The Tories have done a reasonable job with the economy, but are reluctant to leave the EU which is causing a lot of our problems; don't want a return to Grammar schools and are not committed enough on defence. The only party that will take us out of the EU, build new Grammar Schools and increase defence spending by 40% is UKIP. These are sensible policies as the countries with consistently the highest standard of living in Europe over the last few decades are Norway and Switzerland, both outside the EU (but still trade with the EU);the country which has been at the top of the education tables is Singapore which still has a system based upon our old Grammar School system, and finally, with the sabre rattling of Putin and the threat of terrorism the armed forces need to be strengthened, not left with carriers without aircraft.

Okay here goes...

Labour don't want to raise public spending. Labour do want to raise the top rate of tax to 50%, France did have a 75% rate but as far as I am aware they binned that experiment. Labour don't want to join with the SNP, they want a majority Government.

It is interesting that you seemingly cite Norway and Switzerland as evidence for why increasing defense spending is a good idea...

Can you explain how the EU is causing most of our problems? You mention Putin, I would suggest the only thing making him think twice is this union of countries...

Labour always raise public spending and as for a higher rate of tax, the last Labour government only raised the rate to 50% 3 weeks before the last election, as the amount of revenue collected drops when the higher rate goes above 43-45%. The amount of revenue collected increased again as soon as the coalition lowered the rate. Labour will not get a majority and will join any party to obtain power, but the SNP are the favourites (check the bookies).
Try reading - I cited Switzerland and Norway as examples of a higher standard of living outside the EU. The argument on defence spending is between the Tories and UKIP. The EU has caused many problems for the UK. It was illegal for an EU country to subsidise coal, which is why we couldn't compete with Poland (outside the EU at the time), China and Australia and started the demise of the NCB. Due to EU legislation we have had to reduce coal powered electricity generation, making us more reliant upon imports of Russian gas and French Nuclear energy. We lost most of our fishing fleet as we had to share our waters with the EU. CAP has strongly favoured the French agricultural industry and been detrimental to our farming industry. It has resulted in four layers of government instead of two and hence, a vastly increased amount of red tape, which reduces the competitiveness of industry and results in business relocation overseas. Last, but not least it has also resulted in mass uncontrolled immigration. As for Putin and the Russian sabre rattling - NATO fighters have been scrambled 68 times this year along Lithuania's borders ; there have been 150 'close incidents' in Latvia; 5 airspace violations in Estonia compared to 7 in the past 8 years; 5 in Finland compared with less than 2 per year over the last decade, as well as many other incidents in both EU and non - EU countries . ( Russian Air Incursions Rattle Baltic States).

Labour still want to copy France and raise taxes and public spending, yet France has been described as a 'basket case' because of the high unemployment and slower growth that these policies have brought. Furthermore, they will join with the SNP which will be a disaster for the UK.
The Lib Dems have been so poor that their leader may not get in as an MP according to recent polls.
Plaid wants Westminster to stop governing us, yet is happy to be governed by the Germans and French via the EU. They are a bunch of hypocrites who just want more political career jobs.
The Greens would not make it illegal to join terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Perhaps they long for a return to the Dark Ages with Sharia Law so that energy consumption e.t.c. would be reduced.
The Tories have done a reasonable job with the economy, but are reluctant to leave the EU which is causing a lot of our problems; don't want a return to Grammar schools and are not committed enough on defence. The only party that will take us out of the EU, build new Grammar Schools and increase defence spending by 40% is UKIP. These are sensible policies as the countries with consistently the highest standard of living in Europe over the last few decades are Norway and Switzerland, both outside the EU (but still trade with the EU);the country which has been at the top of the education tables is Singapore which still has a system based upon our old Grammar School system, and finally, with the sabre rattling of Putin and the threat of terrorism the armed forces need to be strengthened, not left with carriers without aircraft.

Okay here goes...

Labour don't want to raise public spending. Labour do want to raise the top rate of tax to 50%, France did have a 75% rate but as far as I am aware they binned that experiment. Labour don't want to join with the SNP, they want a majority Government.

It is interesting that you seemingly cite Norway and Switzerland as evidence for why increasing defense spending is a good idea...

Can you explain how the EU is causing most of our problems? You mention Putin, I would suggest the only thing making him think twice is this union of countries...

Labour always raise public spending and as for a higher rate of tax, the last Labour government only raised the rate to 50% 3 weeks before the last election, as the amount of revenue collected drops when the higher rate goes above 43-45%. The amount of revenue collected increased again as soon as the coalition lowered the rate. Labour will not get a majority and will join any party to obtain power, but the SNP are the favourites (check the bookies).
Try reading - I cited Switzerland and Norway as examples of a higher standard of living outside the EU. The argument on defence spending is between the Tories and UKIP. The EU has caused many problems for the UK. It was illegal for an EU country to subsidise coal, which is why we couldn't compete with Poland (outside the EU at the time), China and Australia and started the demise of the NCB. Due to EU legislation we have had to reduce coal powered electricity generation, making us more reliant upon imports of Russian gas and French Nuclear energy. We lost most of our fishing fleet as we had to share our waters with the EU. CAP has strongly favoured the French agricultural industry and been detrimental to our farming industry. It has resulted in four layers of government instead of two and hence, a vastly increased amount of red tape, which reduces the competitiveness of industry and results in business relocation overseas. Last, but not least it has also resulted in mass uncontrolled immigration. As for Putin and the Russian sabre rattling - NATO fighters have been scrambled 68 times this year along Lithuania's borders ; there have been 150 'close incidents' in Latvia; 5 airspace violations in Estonia compared to 7 in the past 8 years; 5 in Finland compared with less than 2 per year over the last decade, as well as many other incidents in both EU and non - EU countries . ( Russian Air Incursions Rattle Baltic States).

Labour aren't planning to increase spending, they will cut, just not as much as the Tories. I don't know how this can be any clearer.

You said

The only party that will take us out of the EU, build new Grammar Schools and increase defence spending by 40% is UKIP. These are sensible policies as the countries with consistently the highest standard of living in Europe over the last few decades are Norway and Switzerland

These are sensible policies (including the defense spending one...) as Switzerland and Norway bla bla bla. So I now ask, why is increasing defense spending by 40% a sensible policy? You make it sound as though we could become a Norway or a Switzerland if we leave the EU, this isn't genuine...

The reason the 50% rate doesn't work is because we don't enforce our tax regimes well enough on the wealthy. No party will actually commit to doing this though as it upsets their donors.

Increasing defence spending is sensible as the UK has dipped below the NATO benchmark figure of 2% of GDP (1.88%) for the first time and in an era when there is increased terrorism and uncertainty with Putin and Russia.
I have already listed the reasons how the UK would be better outside the EU (see the list of problems in my previous post).
In a global economy it is futile raising income tax to try and collect tax off the rich. Prior to the last general election there were 53 billionaires in the UK who paid only £10.1m between them. However, £9.3m of the tax was paid by Dyson, which is why he moved his factories to Malaysia as he didn't want to be the only one of the super rich paying tax. The current French government raised taxes and the result was a massive movement of wealthy French people to London and Moscow. Furthermore, the last Labour government made it easier for the rich to avoid tax, by allowing them to set themselves as limited companies paying corporation tax instead of income tax, which is at the lower rate of only 20%. This can be further reduced to 0% with the purchase of a Gibraltar passport for £50k and residency is not required. However, both these methods require much higher accountancy fees, hence the figures of 43-45% tax before people start to use these alternatives. There is only one fair system of taxation and that is to have no income tax and just a sales tax like VAT, with no exemption for overseas visitors. The Tories have always cut income tax and raised VAT to slowly move to this fairer system, where the rich pay more if they want a luxurious lifestyle by spending more, while the poor pay the least as essential foodstuffs are zero rated. This is why the Tories always collect more tax, whereas when the last Labour government were in power, the gap between the rich and the poor grew to it's greatest level since the time of workhouses (OECD figures). Due to the myth that Labour represent the poor, they try to keep everyone poor, hence their dislike for Grammar schools which allowed the brightest from poorer backgrounds to get on in life.

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Shame there isn't a like button as your post would get one.

It is if they can py their own way. The French population who moved are all within their higher tax bracket.

They all earn ~£750,000 a year?

There was no mass emigration of rich people in France, they just made arrangements to not actually pay it. Like most wealthy people do with tax.

Increasing defence spending is sensible as the UK has dipped below the NATO benchmark figure of 2% of GDP (1.88%) for the first time and in an era when there is increased terrorism and uncertainty with Putin and Russia.
I have already listed the reasons how the UK would be better outside the EU (see the list of problems in my previous post).
In a global economy it is futile raising income tax to try and collect tax off the rich. Prior to the last general election there were 53 billionaires in the UK who paid only £10.1m between them. However, £9.3m of the tax was paid by Dyson, which is why he moved his factories to Malaysia as he didn't want to be the only one of the super rich paying tax. The current French government raised taxes and the result was a massive movement of wealthy French people to London and Moscow. Furthermore, the last Labour government made it easier for the rich to avoid tax, by allowing them to set themselves as limited companies paying corporation tax instead of income tax, which is at the lower rate of only 20%. This can be further reduced to 0% with the purchase of a Gibraltar passport for £50k and residency is not required. However, both these methods require much higher accountancy fees, hence the figures of 43-45% tax before people start to use these alternatives. There is only one fair system of taxation and that is to have no income tax and just a sales tax like VAT, with no exemption for overseas visitors. The Tories have always cut income tax and raised VAT to slowly move to this fairer system, where the rich pay more if they want a luxurious lifestyle by spending more, while the poor pay the least as essential foodstuffs are zero rated. This is why the Tories always collect more tax, whereas when the last Labour government were in power, the gap between the rich and the poor grew to it's greatest level since the time of workhouses (OECD figures). Due to the myth that Labour represent the poor, they try to keep everyone poor, hence their dislike for Grammar schools which allowed the brightest from poorer backgrounds to get on in life.

So we just give up on taxing the rich then? You should run for parliament, bound to find enough donations with a strategy like that...

It is if they can py their own way. The French population who moved are all within their higher tax bracket.

They all earn ~£750,000 a year?

What on earth are you on about ? Do you know what a tax bracket is ? Lol

Unbelievable that some people defend the indefensible!

The wealth gap in society is nothing short of criminal and it amazes me that so many people are happy with inequality. People are dying every day because health is not funded properly. People are dying of disease and starvation all over the world... But it's ok that a handful of people live lavish lifestyles and destroy the planet to the detriment of everyone else.

Don't even get me started on the global warming comments (it's not real?... Really???). Some people will believe anything they read in the media. I sniff a lot of 'sun' readers on here!

It is if they can py their own way. The French population who moved are all within their higher tax bracket.

They all earn ~£750,000 a year?

What on earth are you on about ? Do you know what a tax bracket is ? Lol

We were talking about the experiment that was discontinued i.e. the 'millionaires tax' of 75% on salaries over 1 million euros.

You were talking about it here

You know why France binned that experiment don't you ? Because the city outside of Paris with the biggest French population become London so yes we are all benefiting from that move instead of France. Lol great piece of economic planning by the French left

Or maybe you didn't know what you were talking about?

The millionaires tax wasn't an experiment as it was only going to be for two years and this two years have since passed.

However it is a FACT that during that time the city with the biggest French population outside of Paris is London and whether or not they would all come under that tax no-one knows.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Increasing defence spending is sensible as the UK has dipped below the NATO benchmark figure of 2% of GDP (1.88%) for the first time and in an era when there is increased terrorism and uncertainty with Putin and Russia.
I have already listed the reasons how the UK would be better outside the EU (see the list of problems in my previous post).
In a global economy it is futile raising income tax to try and collect tax off the rich. Prior to the last general election there were 53 billionaires in the UK who paid only £10.1m between them. However, £9.3m of the tax was paid by Dyson, which is why he moved his factories to Malaysia as he didn't want to be the only one of the super rich paying tax. The current French government raised taxes and the result was a massive movement of wealthy French people to London and Moscow. Furthermore, the last Labour government made it easier for the rich to avoid tax, by allowing them to set themselves as limited companies paying corporation tax instead of income tax, which is at the lower rate of only 20%. This can be further reduced to 0% with the purchase of a Gibraltar passport for £50k and residency is not required. However, both these methods require much higher accountancy fees, hence the figures of 43-45% tax before people start to use these alternatives. There is only one fair system of taxation and that is to have no income tax and just a sales tax like VAT, with no exemption for overseas visitors. The Tories have always cut income tax and raised VAT to slowly move to this fairer system, where the rich pay more if they want a luxurious lifestyle by spending more, while the poor pay the least as essential foodstuffs are zero rated. This is why the Tories always collect more tax, whereas when the last Labour government were in power, the gap between the rich and the poor grew to it's greatest level since the time of workhouses (OECD figures). Due to the myth that Labour represent the poor, they try to keep everyone poor, hence their dislike for Grammar schools which allowed the brightest from poorer backgrounds to get on in life.

So we just give up on taxing the rich then? You should run for parliament, bound to find enough donations with a strategy like that...

No, try reading the previous post. Increase VAT and reduce PAYE, then make it more difficult for people to be able to claim back, stopping the rich who live overseas to avoid taxation, but want to spend as much time back here as possible.

Apart from Green party and Plaid and smaller socialist parties all the other ones will carry out cuts in austerity policies which have already gone too far. Why should the poor and weak be punished for a situation caused by the banks, which both Labour and the CoNdemns failed to regulate? I have no great faith in any of the main parties, but an anti-austerity vote is essential.

The millionaires tax wasn't an experiment as it was only going to be for two years and this two years have since passed.

However it is a FACT that during that time the city with the biggest French population outside of Paris is London and whether or not they would all come under that tax no-one knows.

You seemed so certain of their earnings earlier in the thread

The French population who moved are all within their higher tax bracket.

Experiments are almost always for a finite length of time. If it had been a resounding success they would no doubt have continued it, predictably it wasn't so they didnt. That is almost the word for word definition of an experiment...