pap

Lordy. Put some gloves on those hands or you'll scrape your knuckles.

You're an established professional graduate. When you went to University, did you think to yourself "my ambition is to buy a hovel", or was it the cold hard reality of the market telling you correctly that it was your best option in a f**ked up housing market? And if your best option is a hovel, what about those that aren't as blessed in the money-making department?

You're making my point for me. Why the f**k is a professionally educated graduate like yourself even having to consider a hovel?

I've consistently made arguments against the Labour Party, from their suicidal position on the EU referendum, their blinkers-on approach to the threat of UKIP, the parachuting of Red Princes into places they know nowt about to win a seat they cannot possibly lose. And oh yeah, my frequent assertion that Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal. I'm sure all of that has just been ignored in your rush to make a point.

The Germans maintain a rent index, which prevents landlords from over-charging. This is dovetailed by an overall rule that makes it unlawful for rents to rise more than 20% in three years. You limit it by legislation, the same way we do for any other area of potential abuse, such as employer rights, etc. The form of legislation is up for debate.

We'd have been supporting Syria had it not been voted out as an option. Miliband shouted it down. Can you stop this implicit Labour vs Tory nonsense, ta? I'm not a member of the Labour Party, haven't told anyone to vote for them and coincidentally enough, gave them a flat no today when they asked if I'd like to campaign for them. I protested them during the '00s, just as I've protested the Tories and the BBC during this Parliament. I've actually protested Labour actions more, so I don't need you to contextualise my thoughts on conflict.

I mentioned both Iraq and Libya. What have you added here?

Indeed the coalition have cut housing benefit, but they did it in the wrong way. The rights of the sitting tenants were not considered at all (apart from "can Stoke and Hastings take them all?"). A more radical idea which might not have involved London becoming the Capitol of f**king Panem (look it up) would have been legislation that placed controls on spiralling rents. Set at an appropriate level, it'd push the cost of housing down to manageable levels, stop a lot of the harmful speculation, and allow more people to have the sort of disposable income that drives the economy. Easy.

I'm going to take you up on your offer of temporary frivolity and offer this. One of my mates reckons that Lara Croft practiced on small animals, such as hamsters and gerbils, before going on to tackle big cats, etc. Your idea reminded me of his.

I'm not trying to be representative of the "left", even though I would consider my politics on that side. I'd agree that the images are deliberately provocative, but in fairness, that's kind of the point and also, I'm not really sure how you can say that Thatcher repeatedly called for a paedo to be knighted against advice in a non-provocative way.

I'm happy enough with my tax burden, at least the level. It's the distribution of funds and the waste that irks me. Did we really need to spend the billions we did on going into Iraq, or more recent, bombing Libya back to a state of civilisation the Numidians would have sneered at? Should we be spending the billions we do on housing benefit, working families tax credits, or any other subsidy to corporations, banks, the rich or any combination of the above? I'd argue not. There are huge economic or legislative levers that could be pulled to improve the state of the economy and/or reduce public spending. A very easy way to do both would be to follow the example of the green states in the US and go for regulation and legalisation of certain narcotics. We wouldn't have to spend as much money on enforcement, justice system or incarceration, and we'd have an entirely new revenue stream for the exchequer (6.6% of England and Wales population would be paying in for weed alone, on 2010 estimates). But hey, that's me making things sound easy.

Sorry UJ. On that last point, you are correct and I duly concede the point.

Yeah, right. The innocent "so you're in favour of spending cuts" business. As for my oh-so-clever pictures, I can see you tried to have a go yourself, but spectacularly failed to either be funny, relevant or even technically proficient. You don't get to decry my technique when you've tried yourself and fallen flat on your arse. Your stunning effort is really your input on this thread in microcosm. Look at the time spent, the thought, the attention to detail and the elegance. Oh yeah, there is none.

It's a justifiable ad hominem when your opponent in a debate is deliberately trying to simplify and twist what has already been said. In your estimation, do you think that UJ was armed with the facts or even the justification to make some of the points he's made? Let's review them, shall we? Accusations of hypocrisy toward the left, because the rich ones aren't paying their money into private healthcare or giving every disposable bit of it away to the poor. Concluding that I'm in favour of spending cuts, when I've already qualified my position. Get the proper rate of corporation tax from companies that are domiciled here, force those that aren't domiciled here to review their tax arrangements. As for spending cuts, I'm all for them in certain areas. Unfortunately, what UJ means is the sort of stuff that we're being told is necessary, which is to squeeze the poor and public services more. How about we stop f**king invading other countries, and save all the cash we're spending to expand the US' economic empire? How about we legislate for out-of-control markets, like housing and banking? If we're talking cuts, let's make sure that people know we're talking about. And that's really been the problem with UJ's input throughout this thread. It's the internal conflict of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and someone who wants to look like he knows what he's talking about. The uninformed idiot is winning. Example right here.

The first game was throwaway. The series really came into its own on II, I reckon, just like StreetFighter. MKII on the SNES was the first year University game of choice.

I know that you think you're probably doing a fine job of corralling people into a trap, but you're just not equipped for the task, mush. My points stand on their own. You already have the answers you need.

You're talking about the shortfall as if it is an inevitability. It's only inevitable if we HAVE to spend money on all the things we spend cash on (we don't) and we're collecting all the tax that we possibly could under the existing rules (we're not). As I said before, I already pay far more tax into the system than I am ever going to get back out. That money, if properly managed and supplemented with actual f**king corporation tax rates, and actual taxable cost centres in the UK, ought to be enough.

Ed Miliband coming across as human. Don't know why he hasn't done more of this, tbh. [video=youtube;14Wy4Vh-4bM]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/wheres-letter-100-people-living-poverty

Bollócks to that. I make my contribution. I more than pay for myself, and I've got no problem paying for others that aren't as lucky. If I'm already paying way more than I cost, why should I then pay more for services I probably won't use, or give money to private healthcare when I could be giving it to the exchequer?

I give the government 30K a year. I don't use the health service much. Why should I have to pay more? I don't think 30k a year is selfish.

Why shouldn't those with money not spend it elsewhere in the economy? It's not like those contributing to private healthcare are going to be supporting small businesses. Why should people feel morally obliged to give their money to big health when we have a public health service, which they are also paying for?

This thread is rather scary. Not only has it got CB Fry and I on the same side, but I've also learned that I'm part of the SaintsWeb Dawn Bombers squadron.

I'm talking about both sides of the house. PFI in particular is a spectacularly bad idea. Infrastructure on the never never.