As in sport corbyn seems to be on a roll, certainly the momentum seems to be with him. No pun intended. May and the tories campaign has been abysmal. However it's difficult to compete with corbyns give everybody everything, don't worry the rich will pay. Unfortunately the rich won't pay as under the Wilson government they will bugger off.
Potentially some political volatile situations are likely. Example 1 -hung parliament with labour and snp voting together .
Example-2 no Tory majority, who will represent us in brexit talks. Example -3 labour and snp- plus liberals deciding the time is not right to exit the eu.
Meanwhile thanks to this foolhardy election we are well into the 2 year Eu exit frame, with no meaningful negotiations underway.
I notice all talk of the Labour Party falling apart have disappeared. The pound is thinking of dropping down to parity with the dollar. All this uncertainty and political upheaval does not bode well for Eu negotiations.

I have never used Hillsborough to support the cuts in policing - I used Hillsborough as an example of why I have little respect for the police and their insular behaviour. Their arrogance does them no favours IMO.

With regards to having more community policing perhaps you could explain why crime numbers have been falling in line with reducing policing numbers? I know what you will say - we can all find articles that support our views doesn't validate yours anymore than a article with a polarised opinion.

As with the Cliff Richard debacle SYP do not seem to have learnt any lessons - they may talk the talk but their recent actions suggest they haven't learnt a thing

Just a small point of order.
Although the referendum was 12 months ago, article 50 was only triggered on 20th March 2017 (9/10 weeks ago) and with the German Elections just around the corner (24th September), not much was likely to happen in the first few months.
Who ever puts a government together will take charge of the Brexit negotiations but, as you intimate, they would certainly change direction if the SNP holds the balance of power, which ironically would put the skids under the SNP's dreams of a second referendum for their own independence.

Just repeat "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable", "strong and stable" and everything will be just fine

Given that Labour are shockingly threatening that the income tax rate would rise to 45p for earnings above £80,000 and then to 50p in each pound earned over £123,000; where are all these selfish, greedy tax-avoiders going to go? Belarus has pretty low taxation, as do plenty of Arab dictatorships. If they don't want to pay their fair share I am happy for them to sod off. I'd be happy to launch a crowd-funding site to pay their air fare.

So its OK that 63% of what you earn should go to the government - seriously how is that equitable?

You're forgetting the generous tax thresholds, they help everyone

Over £40k you give more to the government than you earn for yourself !! over £80k that's grows 58% of what you earn and over 123k that's 63% - and no personal allowance - that's fair!!

Is that every person employed by SYP who have not learnt their lesson?

It's surely fair that people that can afford to contribute more, do so ?
Also, everyone gets their first £11.5k tax free, although you would have to deduct your taxable benefits (company car, health insurance etc) and then you end up with the dreaded "k" code.

I know that the Tory ethos is to "keep what you earn". However, too many have been doing just that (and big business too) even my business paid more corporation tax than Starbucks and their ilk and that certainly isn't right.???

If everyone gets taxed at 20% those that earn more pay more what is the issues with that?

If you earn over £123k you lose your personal allowance - you seemed to have overlooked that?

Was that Starbucks in the UK or world wide?

Now we have it.
You want the poor guy on minimum wage to leave himself with 10k a year to live on and the guy on £120k to "manage" on £100k.
Absolutely fair, especially when you take our food costs and a couple of kids.

I was referring to Starbuck in the UK that "devolved" its responsibilities to the Netherlands.
Following protests in the UK it has now slightly re organised and is contributing more but, there are many, many businesses doing the same.
Google is one of the largest culprits and moves funds from country to country to dilute and reduce its tax burden.
This may not be illegal but, it's certainly immoral.

Remember we're all in this together.

Those receiving housing benefit have paid the price.
The disabled have paid the price.
The elderly have paid the price.
Public sector workers have paid the price.
The armed forces have paid the price.
Schools have paid the price.
Students have paid the price.
Health workers have paid the price.
Social services have paid the price.
The richest have got richer.

Forgive me if I don't give a flying fu ck whether you or the richest 5% feel it iniquitous to pay some of their gains back. I note you are more affronted by those who can more than afford it having to pay a little more rather than the persecution of the poorest & weakest.

Prior to being semi-retired I was a self employed sub contract industrial electrician earning over eighty thousand per annum.
Even now I could work in Canada , South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Botswana, Dubai. I have paid more than my fair share of tax in this country.
I have also trained several highly skilled engineers and paid for them to attend technical college. So your attitude to me would be to sod off.
It might be unpalatable to you but in this day and age money has wings, companies and people will move to countries which suit them better. Don't forget quite a lot of high earners create employment for workers who inturn pay income tax.
If you use France as an example, high rates of income tax for high earners meant that literally thousands moved to London.
They now pay tax in London, presumably you will be happy to tell them to sod off.

On tonights leaders debate!
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Corbyn I think May just scored another immense own goal! Not only did she leave herself open to accusations of running scared, but, her nominated stand in, Amber Rudd just pulled off a massive "I'm the next tory leader" performance. The tories are that cold blooded in their inside machinations that they will already be eyeing May's successor and Rudd just put down her marker!

Everyone keeps talking about high earners paying their "fair share" and pay more tax,but I'm yet to hear a valid reason(s) as to why it's supposedly fair?

If I've gone to college, then university, then got my masters degree, got a job, worked up the ladder for 15 years whist paying off my student debt, worked hard to earn myself a few promotions in that time - why should I have to start paying 45p in every pound that I earn over £80k?

What about that is fair, just because some lazy lay about can't be bothered to get a better paid job than stocking shelves at the local supermarket, if they bother to get a job at all and just live off the state?

What is stopping them putting the effort into life that I have?

I agree to an extent. The 'debate' though was little more than a shoutathon the kids in my little girls playground would have struggled to compete with. I found it particularly amusing when Angus Robertson fired off at the PM for being nowhere to be seen when his esteemed leader was MIA too!

Agree entirely - she has been a huge disappointment.

And this is what is wrong with society today. Have you ever thought that the people who do these jobs are not very academically minded? They may even not have had the chance or opportunity to go to university. Heaven forbid, there may be something wrong with them which means they need the state support.

Not everyone has the chances or support in life you have had and not everyone can be in a high paid job. Someone has to do the low paid jobs and its up to the people who can afford to contribute to pay to help those who struggle.

Congratulations on making the most of your opportunities but not everyone is as lucky as you

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. When you drive past the homeless, the beggars, those with mental problems roaming the streets, you can contemptuously sneer at them, possibly stopping to swat them with your copy of the Daily Mail. Or you could contemplate the tax you avoided paying as self employed - the car, parts of the home, capital allowances, loans, paying your partner just below the tax threshold despite them not doing a jot, the partner's car, pensions, paying dividends at the best time of the year, business entertainment, business travel.

Isn't she lined up for the chancellors slot when Hammond gets the bullet next week??

MO wrote

That's a great post only lost on those who haven't achieved. Reinventing yourself through education is not only available to us all at any stage of life but equally affordable.

I suggest you take up the opportunity then, you might learn something.

It's not all about education, I was just making a point about my experience - some people just aren't built for long term further education. I have friends though that didn't go to uni, and went straight into work at 16 - two have their own businesses and one did some evening college courses once she'd be working for a few years and could afford it, and is now a qualified accountant.

My point is that there are ways to get it if you want it - but I don't think enough people in this country do want it, and want the high earners to pay for them either way!

From my year at school, of c250 kids, only 2 went straight to Uni. There was no ambition or expectation of the others, myself included. Since leaving, several have progressed to further or higher education & many have become relatively successful. I doubt many of those would now follow that FE/HE route due to cost, but that is another argument. I am not aware of any of those 250 ever suggesting that the rich should pay for them, just their fair share.